House Standing Committee on Water & Land

Okay. Good morning, everybody. This is the Committee on Water and Land. I am the Chair, Mark Hashem. To my left is Dee Morikawa, the Vice Chair.

It is Tuesday, 03/19/2026. It's 9:00 AM. We're in Conference Room 411 at the State Capitol, 415 South Bishop Street. Before we start, I have to go through some ground rules. In order for as many people to testify as possible, we're gonna limit your testimony to two minutes.

It's not a hard stop, but after about two minutes or so, I'm gonna ask you to please sum it up. And when you do testify, we did—we have all your testimony, and we did go through it, so please do not read your testimony. And contrary to popular belief, we do know how to read.

So, yes, and because this is a morning hearing, we need to get to session at 12:00. So, if we don't make it, if we don't—if, if we don't end by 12:00, all the bills on the agenda die. So, please be aware of everybody's time. For people on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify.

The Zoom chat function only chats to the technical staff here. We, we cannot see—I don't have a computer in front of me. Yeah. So, we can't—the members cannot see the chat function. If you're—Zoom members, if you're disconnected, we'll try to get you on, but this house is not responsible for errors on your end.

If there is something that happens on our side, if there's a network failure, we will post a new notice and we'll try to—an appropriate notice will be posted, and we will reschedule the meeting. People on Zoom, please avoid using copyrighted images in your background and refrain from profanity and uncivil behavior. Such behavior will be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. And with that said, we are going to start off...

I'm gonna jump right in with SB 253, SD 2, relating to—relating to conservation.

First up, we have—hold on here. Gotta get—oh, sorry. Yeah. First up, we have DLNR.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Ashley Siddiqui, Wildlife Biologist representing DLNR. We stand on our testimony offering comments on this measure and here to answer any questions.

Okay. Thank you. Next up, we have Native Hawaiian Gathering Rights Association, in opposition.

Not present. So, that's all the people that we have registered to testify. We have about six or seven testimonies on this bill. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none, members, any questions for DLNR?

Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. Thank you, DLNR, for being here. Thank you. This, this bill establishes a, a nonprofit entity to create this endangered species sanctuary.

And my question is, are, are there other agencies, University of Hawaii, other entities that are already kind of doing something like this that we can kind of get on board and support them instead of trying to establish something totally new?

There are certainly other entities that are doing endangered species management work. The land trust, for example, they do a lot of good conservation work on lands. Private land owners also do endangered species conservation. We have agreements such as safe harbor agreements between DLNR and private landowners that are doing beneficial work for endangered species on their land. So, there are agreements like that in place.

They're not, I don't know that they're set up similar to what Zealandia would be, where they allow for recreational activities. But it would be dependent on the—those landowners, whether or not they would allow things like that.

Can I follow-up, chair?

Yes.

So, this, this bill would have the DLNR set aside some land for them. So, that, that wouldn't be part of the equation.

I mean, if this, if we were to pursue the, the thought process that I'm, I'm, I'm talking about, and if these other organizations are already doing something like that and they're willing to participate, then we could give them some land to expand their, their work and pursue what this bill is trying to accomplish?

I guess, I don't know that this bill is having DLNR give land. I didn't—I think it's Department of Ag lands that would be offered for or allowed for something like this to happen. And so, it could be on those lands if they, if they, like, if the land trust wanted to do something like that. Is that—I'm not sure if that's the...

Yeah. I'm I'm just trying to establish the, the option of starting something totally new as this bill is requesting or we get on board with something that's already in motion that I, I feel might be a better use or efficiency of tax dollars.

I think, for, for DLNR, the, the best thing we have that's similar to this is going into agreements with private landowners doing safe harbor agreements, and that is essentially to increase endangered species on lands based on the conservation work that they do. And we offer assurances that any restrictions in the future would not be disallowed based on the agreements that we come up with.

But I don't know if we have something like a sanctuary model in the state for other entities to establish.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Okay. Thank you. Question?

Yeah. I apologize for being late and not hearing your testimony, but I assume you're at DLNR. Okay. So, my question is, I noticed that in this bill, that there's, that the entity that is kind of presumed to be created by this bill would oversee for-profit businesses in the sanctuary. So, they would run—and so, I'm just curious about, can you talk more about that?

Yeah. I think the intent of that is it would allow, I don't know, sale of, of products or whatever it might be, outreach type of material, but I'm not sure the intent of that specifically.

Okay, because producing brochures, even selling hats, can be done as a nonprofit. You don't need to create a for-profit entity.

I agree.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. No more questions?

We're moving on. Next up, we have SB 2401 relating to reach our Shoreline Mitigation District. First up, we have the Attorney General with comments.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Alison Kato, Deputy Attorney General, on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General. We submitted comments on inconsistencies in the use of the terms mitigation and adaptation, and that could cause title subject issues.

So more details provided in our written testimony, including the specific locations. And I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have DLNR in support.

Good morning, chair, committee members. Michael Kane on behalf of DLNR. We stand on our written comments, and I wasn't expecting a 163 pages of written testimony to review. I've made it to page 28.

So if I could just make a few quick comments of what I've read so far. We understand the Attorney General's concerns. It looks like OPSD has made recommendations to bring the terminology in sync. We're neutral on what terms we use. It'll be a new term in ten years.

We're more concerned with the content. So whether we call it adaptation pathways or mitigation districts, the content remains the same. So we're okay with that. We reviewed OHA's comments regarding, taking into consideration traditional cultural practices. We stand behind those.

And, I reviewed SANHI's comments. And, I just wanted to point out, I think we're on page 29,30. They've made recommendations regarding temporary permits and how to process those. This language is actually taken out of proposed rule amendments we're working on.

So, one of the issues we've been struggling with is we take a hard line against shoreline hardening because of the it's destructive to our natural resources.

But we don't have a mechanism to address temporary emergency measures. So there's been a lot of you mentioned yesterday in Ka'anapali that we don't wanna open the door to shoreline and hardening, but we also want to help people address the cleanup. So this type of language might help with that. And that's as far as I made it. So I don't have any further comments.

We'll let you sit down and read some more.

Next up, we have Office of Planning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and members. I admit that I did not read the 123 pages of testimony. We our comments indicate we concur with the idea of regional shoreline management and developing regional shoreline adaptation plans. Office of Planning is not a regulatory agency. So we need to work closely with the regulator, which is DLNR and the Land Board.

But what, when we produce a plan, it is for consideration. Not it does not, compel a regulator to take any specific action. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Next up, we have OHA on Zoom.

Aloha, Kuo, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Leialoha Makuanani on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. And apologize for our late submissions, so I'll summarize our comments. We appreciate the improvement made in this SD1 version, which moves it towards a more structured planning based framework under the context that OHA has long supported adaptation strategies that avoid shoreline hardening, which contribute to beach loss and degradation of our coastal ecosystems.

So we believe regional planning is an important part of that if that if if the strategy is done, keeping that in mind.

So we appreciate these this version, and we have two suggested amendments. One which are DLNR Rep. had mentioned. We're recommending adding the assessment of impacts to native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during the development of the adaptation pathway plans.

That's consistent with the current in the measure there where they are validating the public trust resources at that stage as well. The state has Article 12 constitutional obligations similar to those Article 11 public trust obligations.

So we believe it would be efficient to assess those impacts at the regional planning stage. And then our other recommendation is to include a clarifying provision affirming that environmental review requirements are not waived at project level review due to an area's inclusion in an adaptation district.

We're suggesting that because we believe it will reduce any confusion, since there is an add the impact disclosure requirements in these adaptation districts as proposed.

But the specific language, you can find it in our written testimony, and I'm available for questions. You may have. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next up, we have Shoreline Preservation Coalition.

Are they here? No? Is there anybody else present in the room that wishing to testify on this bill?

Go ahead.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, committee members. Chris Delaunay with SanHi Government Strategies here on behalf of the Kana Bay Steering Committee. We're in strong support of this bill with an amendment reflect reflected in attachment as a proposed HD1.

KVSC is a group of nine condominium properties and one residential shoreline parcel on Kana Bay on Maui that have been working collaboratively for several years to address this situation. Currently, the situation, the erosion still occurs and it's very problematic.

So that's the reason why we're supporting this bill. The measure establishes a regional framework, you know, to address this problem. And more importantly, I would like to, say that the bill does preserve full regulatory authority for the state and county agencies.

So that a project developed through a regional shoreline adaptation pathways plan will still be subject to environmental review, the Chapter 343 and all permitting processes like the conservation district use permit and the SMA permit. So we're not asking for any exemptions.

Nothing. Still has to go through the normal process. It's just more of a regional approach and planning and implementation. We asked for several amendments in the HD1. The one was making the terminology consistent regarding regional shoreline mitigation districts throughout the bill rather than adaptation districts.

And this would actually, I think address the AG's concerns, to provide a limited pathway with board oversight for temporary shoreline protection measures and situations where there's imminently dangerous shoreline conditions that extend beyond the duration of emergency authorization.

Emergency permits are a year. There's this gap between the emergency permit and the regional planning part that needs to be addressed to help, you know, clients like our our clients to address the continuous shoreline erosion.

Lastly, add ownership and maintenance of infrastructure as part of the criteria of regional planning. So it's basically who is responsible for the maintenance and shoreline adaptation pathways like growing, etcetera.

So this will help to address that. We deal with that in the planning situation, so we don't have any issues later down the road. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you. That's all the people that we have registered to testify, and nobody else. Is there anybody else wishing to testify?

Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you, Chair. First, I have a question for OHA, and then I have a question for DLNR.

OHA, in regards to, EV in within the coastal areas, is it preserving EV to agricultural practice to build potentially a protective barrier, like a seawall to protect the EV that are in the area, or is it more traditional to allow the ocean to rise and perhaps take the EV?

That's actually, it can be different. So culturally, there are different views on it and it kind of depends on sometimes the area and different Hawaiians in different places have different views on that.

And so it's it has to be more of a individual or case by case decision, I would say. And that's where consultation with Island burial councils and lineal or cultural descendants would be important for these individual projects.

Thank you for that. Chair, may i ask DLNR Question? Thank you DLNR.

So in regards to the Attorney General's comments about the difference between adaptation and mitigation, just I mean, to me, there's a big difference. Mitigation, kind of addresses, I think a common understanding of mitigation, I think, is that you push against the coastal rise. So you would build a seawall because that's mitigation. Adaptation is, okay, everyone start retreating, start moving your buildings back. You adapt.

Like, it's more flexible to the situation. And so I guess I what I'm afraid of is that the heading, it's moving through because adaptation sounds like something maybe more environmentalist one. And at the end, oh, it gives my biggest fear here is at the end, it flips back to mitigation, which is which to me, it leans more towards hardening the coast the coastline to protect, to stand it's kind of like stand your ground.

Mitigation feels like stand your ground, whereas adaptation feels like, okay, we gotta adapt. We gotta move the buildings back.

We gotta let the land go.

Do you know what I mean? Because

Yeah. No. I see what you mean. And like, I agree with you. Like, we I prefer the term adaptation.

But I've also noticed that we first heard this term adaptation about five years ago and pretend in a conference, and it became more and more popular. I know this season, everyone's talking about adaptation. Ten years ago, it was all sustainable development. It was the terms will change. So I like adaptation better than mitigation, but I think it depends on how we define them.

That mitigation can include retreat. It can include sign nourishment. It can include triggers as does adaptation.

Does mitigation include taking apart a building and surrendering that land to the ocean? Mitigation.

I mean, I'm coming from the perspective of protecting the public trust resources. So, yes, mitigating damage to the beach might include removing a building.

So that does include perhaps

I think it depends on how we define it.

I then but this is still have a definition of mitigation or adaptation.

I believe OPSD's

That it's inclusive of all of that. Just making sure.

I'd have to check. I think it like my first reading at 8AM on the bus. I would like it then.

Okay, Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Representative Poepoe.

Thank you.

So the legislature often kind of every year we see resolutions come through where we're approving on a parcel by parcel basis, nonconforming ocean structures, ocean hardened structures.

And my issue with that has been that we should be taking a more broad, holistic look at the entire shoreline of the areas rather than, you know, approving structures on a parcel by parcel basis without fully comprehending or analyzing the impacts to the wider shoreline area.

So do you think that you are taking this approach as described in the bill would help us take a broader, more holistic look at how we treat, you know, these types of permits.

It could help. You're referring to the resolutions for easements?

Yes.

I think it could provide the legislature with some good background information on the region. Easements though, by definition, are parcel by parcel because a landowner will be paying rent on the easement.

Yeah. So it might help in the decision making, but I think we're stuck with that process unless somebody has great access.

Process won't necessarily help that process other than maybe giving us additional information to consider.

I that's what I believe. Yes.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Representative Shimizu

Attorney General, please.

Thank you, Chair.

So in your testimony regarding these wording and the titling, there's no, there's no wiggle room on this. We have to go with mitigation. Right?

If you don't use the term mitigation, use adaptation instead unless there's a concern that perhaps the subject is not the same as what is expressed in the title and that may cause an issue.

And from what I'm hearing from DLNR is you know, titles, I mean, excuse me, not titles but whether it's mitigation or adaptation, it doesn't really matter because it can be saying the same thing depending on how you interpret vocabulary and definitions. So I guess part of my question is, this is like, it went through the Senate, it crossed over. This wasn't flagged earlier?

It just changed in the last version. And I did submit testimony to WAM, but WAM didn't make any changes.

I see. Yeah.

They noted in their committee report though.

Okay.

That perhaps the house could consider this.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Any other questions?

Seeing none. DLNR, I have a question. So did you have time to get to SanHi?

Yeah. I did read SanHi. So that was actually the one I concluded on, and I concur with their suggestions.

So you support their draft?

Yes.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions?

Yeah. DLNR. I'm sorry. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your.

So I did find that that I maybe this is a definition on page nine. It says shoreline adaptation pathways means structural, nonstructural, nature based, hybrid, temporary, or permanent measures, including beach and dune restoration, armoring, elevating, and flood proofing infrastructure. What is armoring, elevating, and flood proofing infrastructure?

Are we on page nine of the bill?

Yes. Page nine. And that's at the top of the page where it says has a definition of shoreline education pathways.

So armoring would be shoreline hardening.

Right. Okay. So it says, or retreat. And then it says, needed to preserve public beaches, lower the risk of flooding loss due to shoreline erosion. So to me, that's not always, that's not always, in alignment.

To me, preserving public beaches and building a seawall, I don't know. That's kind of like a conflict. So how would do you know what I mean? So when this statute gets implemented, my concern is that people are gonna be like, yeah, let's harden it because this definition says we can harden it.

It gives it as one of the options. Let me point you that for a second.

Okay. Yeah. Sorry.

Well, no. I mean, because there are cases where, wait, the next bill you guys are gonna hear might be one of those cases where the legislature, you said in Charlotte Hart, there are cases where we're looking at cement bluffs that are eroding or urban landscapes like Kakaako where there isn't a sandy beach.

So the actual prohibitions are where shoreline hardening will impact, beach resources. Like that's where the state draws the line right now. In terms of this definition, yeah, I agree it seems inconsistent. And I'm

Yeah. And that's and that's where I that's where I mean, it's so broad, and it just could be used and interpreted to benefit whoever

So part of the challenge is when we talk about adaptation pathways, we're talking about engineered shorelines like Waikiki. We're talking about natural shorelines. We're talking about places like West Maui that are in transition, and we don't know which way it will go. We're talking about cultural landscapes, wetlands, and fishponds. So we're talking about a broad range of shoreline types.

So it's challenging to come up with definitions that address all of that and don't just target Kahana or just don't target Waikiki.

Okay. But so for but as a representative of DLNR, you feel that this does give you guardrails. It gives you there's ways to protect it from another administration coming in and then directing the head of DLNR to go in a different, more pro hardening path to use this bill in that way.

So as the bill was amended in the Senate and as it crossed over, the amendments prioritize public trust resources and Office of Hawaiian Affairs have recommended amendments that would also ensure that cultural resources are a high priority. So for me, that's where the protection is. I hope if I'm wrong.

Thank you. Thank you.

Representative Shimizu

Chair, following Rep. Iwamoto's line of questioning, I looked at this list as giving a broad option. Not saying, you gotta do this, you gotta do that, but giving you options to do that. So depending on the specific situation, it gives you specific solutions to apply. The question would be, if hardening was the best option, what would be and DLNR made that determination.

What would be the next set of series of public interaction where, there would be input and discussion before the final decision is made.

It's not like you guys just go, Okay, we're gonna harden this and it gets harden. Right?

Right. Right. So this bill lays out a planning framework, but it it doesn't contain permits themselves. So any plan developed under this, any pathway would still need to go through environmental review, a CDP conservation district use permit if necessary, the Army Corps permits if necessary. So it doesn't, I think earlier versions implied that permits would be waived. This version does not. So we'd still have public review.

So there would be public input

Correct. Yeah.

In those processes.

Correct.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We're moving on.

Next up, we have SB3169. First up, we have DLNR.

Good morning, Chair. Michael Kane, DLNR. We stand by our written testimony as well as our previous oral testimony when this bill was first heard by this committee. I need to add that there seems to be a big push to get this through and it's been in front of multiple committees now. Nobody's asked yet what the actual project is.

I know I think if we're gonna waive a project from all environmental regulations, we should at least ask the landowner or the consultant what the actual project is. Thank you.

Next up, Office of Planning.

We stand on our testimony in support.

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

OHA, on zoom?

Aloha kākou, Leialoha Makuanani. On behalf of Office of Hawaiian affairs. Mostly stand on our written comments. Again, I'll summarize. We have a few concerns with the measure are, we understand the situation at hand, but we have concerns that this pilot program limited to this project is exempting from the established legal frameworks that have been developed to protect our coastline and resources.

That's including the environmental review process, coastal zone management, and conservation district permitting requirements. So we're recommending to remove those exemptions entirely and believe that, any carefully planned program that deals with coastal erosion should go through those legal frameworks.

We also think that creating project specific exemptions risks setting a precedent for other erosion prone areas in the state to do the same process, attempting to bypass the state's, what were carefully constructed regulations to minimize the shoreline hardening and prioritize avoidance and other natural options like beach nourishment and manage retreat.

And then second, regarding historic preservation in this bill, there is an expedited timeline for SHPD's review process, to 45 days. The existing SHPD review process timeline is 90 days under statute currently. It still has an potentially has an automatic provision depending on what bills go through this session.

But essentially we don't see why that 45 day expedited timeline is necessary and that the existing provisions are sufficient there. So we're recommending deleting that provision. That's also in line with the house version of the bill, which did delete that 45 day timeline.

And then lastly, we appreciate OHA's inclusion for the inadvertent discovery process procedures in this bill, but we would ask to be also included at the earlier stage of historic review as well as a consultant. And so we have language in our written review as well as a consultant. And so we have language in our written testimony to do that as well.

And that's just consistent with our typical process with projects and historic review. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next, we have Eric Moto from Paia Mantokuji Soto Zen Mission on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair Hashem, Vice Chair Morikawa, and members of the committee. Eric Moto here representing Paia Mantokuji Soto Zen Mission again. This time in support of Senate Bill 3169. Like HB 2490, SB 3169 is for Mantokuji and all other constituents on eroding shorelines for whom the financial and logistical challenges of retreat are overwhelming.

And for those of us who make the choice to work on other options to strengthen, restore, and preserve our shore our coastlines in order to try and stay in place.

The bill's exemptions are not for anyone to script the rules and regulations or ignore restrictions, but simply to provide an opportunity for us to work on alternative solutions as we continue to submit sound and workable plans to county, state, and federal agencies for approval. So please, I hope we ask for your support of Senate Bill 3169. Mahalo.

Okay. Thank you. Next up, we have Mark Deakos in opposition on Zoom.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Doctor Mark Deakos, Chief Scientist for the Hawaiʻi Association for Marine Education and Research. I offer this testimony with deep compassion for the families connected with this project. The threat to ancestral burials, cultural history, and nearby homes is real and observes, and deserves care but compassion does not require bypassing Hawaii coastal protections.

This bill is site specific, but it does set precedent and granting exemptions from environmental review opens the door for future projects to do the same. So for decades efforts to hold the shoreline in place through armoring and emergency responses have come at enormous costs and with limited success.

These approaches often fail over time. They increase risk and accelerate the loss of beach and shoreline function. I do agree with one important concept in this bill that the shoreline should be managed as a connected coastal cell.

That's exactly right. But it should lead to better regional planning, not exemptions from the laws that protect our coasts. So a programmatic approach to certified shoreline surveys would be appropriate and would lessen the burden on individual property owners. The shoreline is not broken. It's doing what it's done for thousands of years.

It's moving landward in response to waves, sediment transport, and sea level rise. That natural movement sustains beaches, dunes, and nearshore ecosystems. When we harden the coast to stop that process, we don't save the shoreline. We squeeze it out of existence. And that loss is not abstract.

These beaches are public trust resources of immense ecological, cultural, and economic value. And once they're lost, they're incredibly difficult to bring back. So the right answers are already happening on the same shoreline less than half a mile away.

The Paella Youth and Cultural Center is implementing managed retreat and dune restoration as is Baldwin Beach. Both are restoring natural processes while taking people out of harm's way and both have undergone environmental review.

These projects show a better path. So we have an opportunity to do both protect cultural history, preserve this coastline for future generations. I respectfully urge you to deny the bill or at a minimum remove these environmental exemptions. Thank you.

Kai Nishiki on Zoom.

Are you there?

Hello. Yes. Aloha, chair, members. Kai Nishiki testifying from Maui Nui Resiliency Hui, and I want to acknowledge that what's happening at Antokuji in Paia, it is a really hard situation, and it deserves care and thoughtful solutions. At the same time, we have to be honest about what's happening physically.

That shoreline is changing and it's going to keep changing. The Bay Works says one system, waves, sand movement, and sea level rise. And if we don't work with these processes, we're not going to get lasting results.

I actually support the idea of looking at this at a regional scale. That's where we need to go. Nature based solutions, dune restoration, sediment management, and really studying and implementing managed relocation as part of that. The part I really struggle with is section 2F because what, because what that does is ask you to allow a project without really defining what it is to bypass environmental review and core coastal protections. Those laws exist for a reason.

They make sure we look at impacts alternatives, involve community and public input, and look at long term consequences not just short term fixes. My concern is bigger than this just one site. If we allow this here it sets a precedent and we will see this again and again. Other shoreline projects asking for the same exemptions. The thing is here in Maui we already have examples of doing this the right way.

In Paia, the youth and cultural center is actually going through environmental review at the moment and has plans and funding to rebuild inland and restore the shoreline. That's managed relocation in practice.

We're also removing structures at Baldwin Beach, Kapuka'alua, and are restoring dunes, rebuilding natural systems. So we're learning, we're already learning that the path forward is to move back and let beaches migrate, not try to hold the shoreline in place. And importantly, there's funding available to support that kind of work.

The county has a managed retreat fund that has already been utilized $500,000 to remove some structures on the site. So there is a path forward without bypassing the law, and we have already been in discussions to apply for more funding.

Sorry, Kai. Can you sum up your testimony?

Yes. We are in discussions to ask for additional funding to remove and relocate the structures on this site. We don't need to sidestep the law to solve this problem. We need to follow it. I respectfully ask that you delete section 2F or oppose the bill entirely. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next, we have Bianca Isaki.

Aloha. Sorry. I'm having, technical difficulties. So I oppose this bill. I'm a local attorney.

I have multiple cases against shoreline hardening and beach nourishment also. And it really taxes the communities who are trying to protect their coastal resources. This bill is going to set a precedent that doubtless other shoreline owners will want to follow. I mean, I have a lot of sympathy for the mission, but I mean, a lot of people own property on the shoreline and also have a lot of investment, like burials and other historic properties on their shorelines.

Also, I just want to point out that this is special legislation which is not allowed.

I mean, would the legislature have this special session to give the Super Ferry an exemption from environmental review? There had to be a whole lot more litigation, a lot of resources put into, stopping that. And the courts did find that that's not allowed. And these are exemptions from environmental laws. I mean, and just like, Nishiki just pointed out, if Matokuji has good plans, they should be able to comply with those laws.

Also, DLNR is right. We don't really know what the project will end up being because they don't know yet. But if it ends up being something like shoreline armoring, what we do know is that that's not a long term solution, and they'll just have to keep coming back for more permits, and it will just drag things on. So please oppose this bill. Thank you.

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

Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Question.

Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. DLNR, please.

DLNR, I'm not sure if you know, but this bill is asking DBEDT to be the lead.

Correct.

Do you know how that happens?

Or, would you be able to comment whether the you folks are better, test or able to perform this versus DBEDT? I just feel like DBEDT is not the appropriate department and, you know, just my opinion.

DBEDT, I'm not gonna make eye contact with them behind me. It's not a regulatory agency. They're a planning agency. So when this bill was framed as a planning document, then DBEDT was in a perfectly appropriate agency to host it. As it's phrased now, it's a regulatory bill.

So DBEDT is not appropriate, And I am not comfortable taking on projects that waive. Well, we're excluded from the process.

Chair, can I get a follow-up question?

Yes. Go ahead.

Have you read the OPSD's regional shoreline mitigation initiative?

And would you be able to comment on that and if it's applicable in any way to this situation?

Yes.

Applicable in what?

In the concepts or any of their findings or I'm sorry. I haven't read it, so I'm asking the question.

Oh, okay. I mean, there's really only three solutions. There's heart in the shoreline. There's beach nourishment. There's retreat. Everything else is just one of those three options rephrased in different language.

So, OPSD studies, I think might use different terminology, but it all comes down to those are our three options. Or I mean, adapt in place, raise buildings but that's not practical in this situation.

Can we move on?

Oh, I'm sorry, Chair. I have one last question, hopefully. Is it okay?

Yes.

You know this, you brought up the exemptions which OHA has brought up too. So, I agree that that's very dangerous. So if we were to amend it and and take those exemptions out and have you back as, the regulatory agency taking control of this. The 45 day review is another issue and you don't even know what you're reviewing. So how can you commit to 45 days?

What would be a reasonable time frame for you?

I think now you're referring to the historic preservation sections when you're talking about 45 days.

Yeah. That's the requirement in the in the bill.

Right. I would have to check with SHPD on whether that's appropriate. In terms of moving the exemption to, from shall be excluded to maybe excluded, Chair Hashem asked me that during previous testimony, and I agree that I could live with that. I don't have to like it, but I can live with it.

Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, DLNR.

Representative Poepoe.

Thank you, chair. So, with the House bill, I did ask the question of if the applicant or their agent could give an idea of what the project might look like. And what they did say was, at the hearing was that they were looking at nature based solutions.

And you just said the options basically are hardening, retreat, or beach nourishment. So the nature based solution and nature based solution and those three options would be the beach nourishment?

So nature based solution is another one of those terms that was really good 15 years ago and

You can use it for everything.

Can you give examples of what nature based solutions might be?

I mean, for me, my hardcore definition is beach nourishment and restoring the natural coastline with coastal vegetation. But others will argue that nature based is nature inspired. So building an artificial rocky a man made rocky headland that imitates the bay has been called nature based. So it's no longer a term I use.

Okay. Wonderful. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Oh, I got a question for you. So this is not a pristine beach.

The 30's. Right? In the thirties, they extracted all the sand and that's why that's what essentially caused this problem.

Correct.

Right? Okay. So for whatever reason, it seems like when the bill passed when we passed this bill, the house version of it, it didn't seem like it had as much opposition as it does now. Do you prefer the house bill over this?

I prefer the house version. And I believe the only change was to move, remove the word shall and say may. There might have been other amendments, but that's the one that sticks

That sticks in your head.

That's the one that

Great. So would you be more comfortable if we put the house version back into this bill?

I would be.

Okay. Thank you.

That's my real question. Thank you.

Go ahead. Can I ask a follow-up? So did the house version I'm sorry. I think I was excused that day. What was passed out?

Did it maintain DLNR in the process as opposed to DBEDT?

Because it making it, making rather than excluding all the terms in regulatory authority, it was okay that it stayed with DBEDT because then DBEDT was a coordinating agency and the planning agency as opposed to a regulatory agency. So just that word shifted the burden so that we are comfortable with the remaining with the event. Which is that?

I'm looking at that bill right now, actually.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you.

So moving on. Next up.

Next up, we have SB17. First up, we have Office of the State Fire Marshal. Oh, they're not there. DLNR?

Hello, chair. Excuse me. Hello, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Michael Walker. I serve as the Statewide Fire Protection Forester for DLNR Division of Forestry and Wildlife.

The department has submitted testimony and provided comments on the measure. In summary, we'd like to see the addition of the Insurance Commissioner to the working group or the Insurance Commissioner's Designee.

And we would also like to see that the working group follow the developing wildfire action strategy that the Attorney General has contracted Hawaii wildfire management organization to develop. And I'm available for any questions you have.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Office of Planning in support.

Next, we have DHHL in support.

[Inaudible]....

Thank you. And next, we have PUC.

[Inaudible]....

Next, we have Kamehameha Schools.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, committee members. My name is Mike Hayashida, I represent the Kamehameha Schools. We stand on our written testimony in support of this bill. My current position is a Manager of Wildfire, Christopher Kamehameha. Prior to this, I spent 32 years in the Hawaii Fire Department.

The last 12 as a Battalion Chief of Emergency Operations. The highlight for this bill is the fact that it addresses the wildfire problem collectively and not rigidly. To answer any questions, thank you for hearing this bill.

Thank you very much. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. We have 10 or so pieces of testimony for this bill. Is there anybody else wishing to testify?

Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Question.

Representative Shimizu.

Forestry person. I'm so sorry. I didn't get your name.

Thank you for being here.

There there's a Are you with DLNR?

Yes, sir.

Okay. You mentioned the state's ongoing wildfire action strategy, I mean, with that group avoid duplication or conflicting plans.

And I would agree totally. We don't wanna waste money. That's for sure. So having said that this this bill, if it passes, how do we reconcile that so that we do exactly what you just what was just stated in your testimony?

I believe you could insert some language saying that the group should follow the wildfire action strategy once it's fully formed and developed from the contract that the Attorney General has with Hawaii Welfare Management Organization.

They're currently going through working with all the departments in the administration to come up with their values at risk, what their resources could be to contribute to prevention, pre suppression, and suppression efforts, as well as recovery and formulate a plan for each department's, ability to work together to reduce wildfire risk across the state.

Okay. That's great. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Thank you very much. So no other questions. We're moving on.

Next up, we have SB 3014 relating to wildfire. So turtles. Sorry. Relating to wildlife and wildfire. First up, yeah.

DLNR in support.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Kelly Isego with Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources. The department stands on our written testimony and support. Here for questions.

Next. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Nobody on Zoom.

Is there anybody else wishing to testify?

Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Question, Chair.

Doctor. Dylan R, since you're the only person that joins, but you're the right person. So thank you for being here. You know, currently, I think it's $250 first time fine and $1,000 for the second or beyond.

Do you guys have any problems collecting on that?

I do not have that information handy on me right now. But I can ask our follow-up with our administrative proceedings officer and they'll care.

Because I guess we're part of this bill is increasing the fine. So if we're already having a problem collecting, then you know, of course, it's great to say, theoretically, we have this money coming in. But if we really can't realize it, then what what is it? Yeah?

Yeah. So the fines that we're talking about here are criminal fines. And so those would be assessed when they're, when they're convicted. And that would be given as part of the order by the judge. And so a lot of it has to do with writing in education to the judiciary on how to allocate those funds correctly.

And then it goes into a fund for DLNR, and then we get those funds back after that. So it is kind of a roundabout way on how we get the funds back, but it really rests with whether or not the judge assesses those fines.

So you pretty much get it then?

Yeah. Generally, if they're convicted, we will get it.

Chair. One more question, please.

Okay. Go on. Representative Poipo is waiting.

I'm so sorry. Go ahead.

Representative Poepoe.

Just following up on that question. Would you say that the fines in and of themselves help serve as a deterrent for to prevent this activity from happening in the first place?

If people know about the fines then, yes. So I think it needs to be coupled with a lot of education and outreach because when we see instances of harassment being reported to us, a lot of it are tourists or people who aren't from here that don't necessarily know what the fines are or know whether or not it's illegal. And so I think it needs to be coupled with education and outreach.

Yeah. It's actually my second question is, do you have to like put up signs so that people are aware? Otherwise, they can say, oh, I didn't know and that's not fair.

So generally, people are, people are expected to know the laws of the area whether or not the exact laws are posted. However, judges can take that into account if when they're passing their sentence or conviction when someone gets convicted. And so they take all of those factors into into account when handing down their sentence.

Okay. Alright. Okay. Thank you very much. Next up, we have SB3032 SD 1 relating to beaches.

First up, we have we have nobody here to testify. Anybody here to testify on SB3032 SD 1? Seeing none, members, are there any questions? No. Next up, we have HB SB1432 HD 1.

It's linked to changes and changes to responsibilities of the default. Okay. First up, we have DLNR. Alright. Okay.

I'm sorry. First up, we have DHEHL. DHEHL. Thanks. Next, we have department of health.

The Department of Health, Stan, and Justin will comment. Next, we got is there anybody else in this room wishing to testify? We probably go on to Zoom. Yes. But stay go come up to the podium and state your name.

Thank you. Did you come all the way from Kalaupapa?

Yep.

Oh, thank you for coming.

I brought my friends. Aloha, Chair Hashem, Vice Chair Morikawa, and members of the Water and Land Committee. My name is Degray Vanderbilt and I'm testifying as an individual. And for a number of years, I've continued to serve on the board of directors of Kaohano Kalapapa, which is a nonprofit organization conceived and fostered by the residents of Kalapapa.

In past years as a resident, I had the privilege of serving as chairman of the Molokai Planning Commission. First off, I'd like to thank Alvin from the Water and Land staff for helping me understand the process a little bit better. It gets confusing at times. Next off my flight was canceled early this morning. I got the last seat on the next standby flight or otherwise I couldn't have been here.

So I have a feeling that, my friends down here in front where they're helping me and looking down from heaven, they are Boogie Kahilihiva who is the last president of Kaohana O'Kalapapa, Pauline Chao who just recently passed away, who was on the board, and Gloria Marks who was the most recent to pass away, and she was a long time member of the board. I'm not gonna read through all my testimony.

Mostly, my testimony was based on I put in some changes because it just seemed like the Bill as written, seemed that everything was pretty well set. And I just think that 1 of the main things is that there were 2 changes to the Hawaii revised statute 60 and section 326 requiring on, Collebaut County to become part of Maui County and also for Papa to become a state historical area.

And they've been negotiating DOH as transaction transition plan for when there's no longer any patients.

Since 1990. For all those years up until today, there's been no community engagement. And so, 1 of the changes in here was that in this Bill, it already calls for future planning and, and the transfer of the powers and duties to include Kaho'ano, Kalapapa, and the topside community organization, which is terrific. But I would also add in the department of Hawaiian Homes.

And I think they're have every right to be there if they oversee the assets of the native Hawaiians. There's a lot of ceded land down there which of course, the office of Hawaiian affairs oversees. And so anyway, that I wrote some amendments in here. Some of them are just changed some things around.I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if the wording's right and if but I would like you to consider them.

And the but the main ones are changing 2 state laws at this point And the justification to consider the amendments for not having the changes in the laws at this point is that, in its testimony earlier this week before the Water and Land Committee, DOH stated that in its Kalapapa transition update dated August 23, which was a collaborative summary of DOH, DHHL, and DLNR the following. The final transition decisions will be determined by.

Who will take over jurisdiction of Cali, Laue County, and how this Kalapapa State Historic Park will continue to operate without DOH involvement over or control. These higher level decisions will require community engagement, executive direction, and interagency dialogue and collaboration. So hopefully,

Kaho'ano, Kalapapa, The Topside community will be continue to be cited in this Bill as being members of the transition committee and also adding.

so basically, I think at the last hearing, I wasn't able to make it over here, but I think somebody asked DLNR interim Chair, Ryan Kanakoli. Would you mind if, this was on SB2799 which is sort of related to SB1432. Would you mind if they included OHA on the group? And someone Mister always said no, we wouldn't mind at all. And I think if you ask the same, it'd be interesting to ask the same thing.

DOH is here. Would they mind including Kaohano, Kalapapa, OHA, and the topside community, organization to be members of the transition team, which would be helpful to them because right now, it's all government agencies. 3 organizations could provide a tremendous amount of institutional knowledge and local knowledge that would help future transition discussions, which are very important for the future of Kalapapa. So thank you very much. And I really appreciate this opportunity to testify.

Mister Degray, we put your picture on the Chair so people can see on the on the screen.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you. That's why we moved it, so people can see. And by the way, there's a whole bunch of attorneys behind you, so go ahead. You can ask them. And they're building other clients, so you can hear it.

Thank you so much.

You're welcome. Next, anybody in person that would like to testify?

My name is Sybil Lopez. I am came all the way from the island of Molokai. I am speaking on behalf of the sovereign council of the Hawaiian Homes, Hawaiian Homestead Associations with the, being the Molokai Mokupuni director. I am not in my official capacity as the Molokai planner of the county of Maui planning department. So I'm here as with for the beneficiaries, and I really support the efforts of what DHHLs.

I did do written comments, so I stand on my comments in addition to addressing some of the testimonies, the written testimonies. So I'm addressing the written testimonies.

And I wanna make full support on the department of Hawaiian Homeland's testimony, which states that they would that at the time that does not have a position, they don't have a position whether or not Kalua County should be incorporated into Maui County, but rather they would come from come to us as beneficiaries to gather comments to see what the position would be.

I also support the Department of Health's comments where they said that the department believes that it would be inappropriate to insert statutory requirements that's specifically address planning for the future of Kalaupapa settlement or the county of Kalauaua in chapter 326. And I believe, in my opinion, that means that they're reverting that conversation back to DGHR with the proper people in mind, which is the beneficiary.

So I appreciate that comment as part of their testimony. And the last testimony that I wanna address is the last testimony received, as 1 of the comments made by 1 of our own. And I really like his testimony because that is the exact reason why we need beneficiary consultation. He addresses the limited potential breach of fiduciary responsibility.

According to Hawaiian Homes Act, he addresses the existence of what was meant for Department of Health, which they act as a board of supervisors until the last remaining, passing of the residents, which is still seem to be vetted.

So I appreciate that he, addresses that and, really arguing about the county zoning and DHL rights. And these are all the things and having even Hawaii law not even recognizing a pilot county, which you guys have that opportunity to insert as a law. And I appreciate that because that is exactly what we need to talk about on our level with DHHL.

So my testimony, the written one is why we opposing the absorb the absorption of Kalawao County into Maui County because we still gotta talk about it. Yeah.

So amongst Department of Health doing their their responsibility, NPS doing their management plan, DHHI and DLNR as the land owners, but us as the beneficiaries to that trust. So please consider us as being part of that table, being able to discuss all of these and come back to you guys with possible solutions and mitigation on how we're gonna manage this.

And if it's a county pilot project, this is the perfect place to start with our beneficiaries, a little area, and see how successful we can be because it's self governance. Our principal hero taught that he written that in his legacy, and it was a delegation of congress and not even him as a voting member that was able to pass in 1920. And that is why we still exist for 10 generations to come.

So mahalo, you guys. I gotta catch my flight. And call them Mike because I gotta leave. So thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you. Any questions?

So we have Keani Rawlins on Zoom.

Aloha, committee Chair Hashem, Vice Chair Morikawa, our Molokai representative, Rep Poipoi, and honorable committee members, as well as DeGrande Civil, aloha. Mahalo for this opportunity to provide testimony in support of SB1432, SD 2 HD 1 relating to changes to responsibilities of the Department of Health concerning patients, the county of Kolauwel, and the Kalaupapa settlement. I'm Maui County council member, Keani Rawlins-Fernandez. I'm testifying in my individual capacity as a council member from Molokai.

The Maui County Council has also taken an official position in resolution 21-190 supporting this action.

I submitted written testimony, so I'll keep this brief. I respectfully ask you consider striking the establishment of the Kalaupapa State Historical Area and would request consideration for the act to take effect upon the 2 year mark of the passing of the last patient resident of Kalaupapa. I have included those 3 proposed amendments to accomplish this.

I included comments received via testimony from our community members, including Tigre and Sybil regarding this issue, specifically, the request to have another state agency manage Molokai, such as DHHL, Molokai becoming its own county, and the concern that there isn't enough funding to adequately care for the historic structures in the Kalaupapa settlement. Fully trust our Molokai representative to provide guidance to this committee that are in alignment with our community's request, and appreciate your strong leadership in representing us rep poipoi.

Mahalo for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Valerie Monson on Zoom.

Aloha. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Valerie Monson. I'm Executive Director of Ka Ohana o Kalaupapa, a nonprofit organization that was started by the Kalaupapa residents in 2003. So we've been operating for about 22 years now.

You know, I want to say that we appreciate all the work that the government agencies have done over the years in trying to plan the future of Kalaupapa, but we feel that there's still so many questions that we don't know about. You know, Hawaiian homes, I'm glad Sybil was there because, you know, 1,300 acres of Kalaupapa is Hawaiian homelands.

And we still don't know if homesteading is going to be allowed there. The infrastructure is there, the housing's there. We know that there's interest. And so I really hope that there are more outreach with the beneficiaries to talk about this. We're all we also have a concern about who will be in charge of Kalaupapa.

You know, there's all these different agencies that are supposedly going to have jurisdiction or partial jurisdiction. But if it's the National Park Service that has full control at Kalaupapa, that means the federal government would have control of 1 of Kalaupapa's most sacred places. If that happens, I really believe that there has to be some kind of an oversight group, of people with cultural, who have cultural knowledge and, connections to Kalaupapa descendants to make sure that Hawaiian values always guide, Kalaupapa.

We know that you know, the government agencies are good at discussing things about infrastructure policies you know, keys, people who has keys to what. But Kalaupapa is about people.

That's why Kalaupapa is such a special place, why it's such a sacred place. Because of the 8,000 men, women, and children who were taken from their families and sent to Kalaupapa. You know, it reminds me of what ICE is doing today. And yet they went on to overcome so much, to create this incredible community that continues to inspire many of us.

Kalaupapa will always be a place of people, even after the Department of House health leaves, even after the last resident passes away they will, there will always be descendants.

There will always be descendants of descendants who want to make that connection to Kalaupapa. We've helped over a thousand descendants learn about their ancestors or learn more about them, and have helped people visit Kalaupapa where it's a very emotional experience. So I think it's important that it's not only government agencies planning the future of Kalaupapa. You have to have organizations that focus on the people and know the people and the descendants. And I think Ka'ohana o Kalapapa has done an amazing job over 22 years. You know, I'd also like to see the office of Hawaiian affairs. And of course

Sum up your testimony.

Yeah. And just like to see the office of Hawaiian affairs, some the beneficiaries, and also people from Upper Molokai included, in planning the future. So thank you.

Thank you. Last, we have Lori Buchanan on Zoom.

Wow. Thank you so much. So nice to see you, Chair Hashem. Long time no see. I happen to know that Chair Hashem has been in Kalaupapa.

And so I know he's familiar with the settlement. But mahalo, everyone. Laurie Buchanan, Bernadette Molokai, long time resident and community advocate. I feel very strongly about Kalaupapa and the issues involving Kalaupapa for many, many, many years. And I do agree, with a lot of the testimony I heard today.

I do agree with what council woman said, and I do agree with the approach that Rep. Poipoi is taking. So I'm not gonna revisit that, but I do support Maui County transitioning to Maui County, and that should not preclude any future asked by the Department of Hawaiian Homeland. So anybody that wants to initiate further planning for more autonomy by the Molokai residents and communities. So I really I do support at this time Maui County transitioning to Maui County, and I'm gonna tell you why.

The rest of my time, I wanna spend telling you the why. The why is because I've been involved so long with the Department of Fine Homelands, DLNR, Department of Interior, you name it, for over 25, 30 years now. In 2016, 2017, under the Trump administration, then Department of Interior secretary Ryan Zinke stopped all general planning communications with the people of Molokai through the order by President Trump. And I have that in writing.

Since 2016 till now, it's been nearly impossible to have any communication with the planning and what's going on in Kalaupapa.

On my own, I have advocated by just really digging into and finding out what's going on in a few things, and I'm gonna give you an example. The park service wanted to dredge the pristine harbor. Oh my god. Like, really? The reason was because they wanted to bring in a barge.

The barge could not fit. YB didn't wanna bring in a smaller barge. So the answer was to judge the harbor, the pristine harbor. I fought them to the point where I had to find an alternative for the state, which resulted in a smaller barge coming in and YB actually agreeing to do that. Other things I have fought them on on my own was airport upgrades and the installation of radio towers next to the iconic, lighthouse, huge towers.

And I fought them hard on that. And so far, we don't have any radio towers next to the iconic lighthouse.

Other things and most recent is the $30,000,000 electrical upgrades in Kalaupapa where I have to be at a second meeting of the Department of Ag and Biosecurity to petition or to file to intervene to have the park service not ship in gravel for the project and to remove the current emergency CRB interim rule for the Island Of Molokai, which I fought hard for because my regular day job is invasive species.

And the Island Of Molokai has not yet detected CRB fire ants or cookie frogs, and we worked really hard to do that. But what I'm trying to highlight is the difficulty as a practitioner, as the co o for the Molokai Ahakiole of Palau Moku.

Not only that but through, stakeholder meetings through the years.

Sorry, Laurie. Can we can we

Can I can I okay? I'll wrap it up. But I just wanna highlight the difficulty. And I think transitioning to Maui County will add structure and have us have better stakeholder and input on the whole Kalapapa discussion. Thank you. You guys need to come back. Hi, Dee. Nice to see you.

Good to see you. That is all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none members, any questions? Representative Shimizu?

I just wanted to make a comment, but I wanted to thank mister Grandeville for making the long trip and bringing your, Aloha here. Thank you. Thank you for being here. And bringing your friends to representative Poipoi.

DHHL. Thank you. I just wanted to confirm that from your understanding of the bill, it will not impede in any way on DHHL's, process that you're undertaking to do the Beneficiary Consultation and, soliciting feedback and correct

The Bill as written design feed in our abilities to conduct beneficiary consultation.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we will recess to get It's the last

Okay. Good morning, everybody. We are reconvening our meeting on Water, Land for decision-making. First up, we have SB 3253 SD 2, relating to conservation. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD 1 taking DLNR's amendments, doing technical amendments, and defecting the date to 07/01/3000. And we're gonna change the preamble a little bit. There's problems in the preamble. That's not gonna affect the bill. Any comments or concerns?

Co-Chair?

Yes.

In my line of questioning, I have concerns about creating more bureaucracy in government things, but seeing that there's two more committees, I'm gonna vote with reservations to get it forward.

Yeah. I talked to the introducer of this bill. He saw this being done in New Zealand, I believe, and he's trying to-- it's a work in progress, so thank you for your yes vote. And we'll keep moving it on. I can't keep thinking--

Yeah, I went with reservations myself for the same reasons.

All right. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Members, we're voting on SB 3253 SD 2. Recommendation: do pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. [Roll call]. Chair, it's adopted.

Okay. Thank you very much, members. Next, we have SB 2401 SD 1, relating to regional shoreline mitigation. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD 1. We're gonna take SanHi's HD 1 amendments and move it to the next committee. Defect the date to 07/01/3000. Any comments or concerns?

Yes. Thank you. I'll be voting no because-- yeah. It just-- I need to look a little bit closer at those amendments in total.

DLNR's okay with it.

With SanHi's amendments? So it's the flipping of the language. I mean, so we're removing all the adaptation language and making wherever it says adaptation to mitigation. I just--

To-- to align it with the title because then we have title issues.

Yeah. Yeah.

So that's a reservation?

It's-- on this one, I'm just still-- I need to take a-- yeah.

Okay.

Sorry. It's still no, but-- yeah.

All right. All right. Oh, you're too late. She already checked it so you can't change your vote.

Perfect.

Okay. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. We're voting on SB 2401 SD 1; recommendation to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absence of Rep. Belatti, and she will be excused for the rest of this agenda unless otherwise noted, are there any reservations?

Reservations.

Rep. Shimizu. Any noes besides Rep. Iwamoto? Your recommendation's adopted.

Okay. Thank you. Next up, we have SB 3169 SB 1, relating to coastal resilience. The Chair's recommendation is to defect this to 07/01/3000. Technical amendment. Okay. Yeah. Tech amendments. We're gonna take-- we're gonna insert the contents of HB 2490 HD 2 into this bill. DLNR said that's the bill that they preferred and that had less opposition. So, Chair's recommendation is to put context of our old bill into this.

Chair, does that address the environmental exemptions?

Yes. Well-- yes. It's up to DLNR to decide which one to exempt or not exempt. And DLNR said they prefer that.

Thank you, Chair.

Chair, I apologize. I feel-- I'm, at this point, and without you writing anything down yet, Vice Chair, I'm feeling no, and the reason why is because this defines the department as DBEDT. I'm looking at the HD 2 version. So when it says, may be exempt, which is great--it's discretionary for the department--it's the wrong department. I mean, I'm thinking DLNR is okay with it, but does DLNR realize that the department that has the discretion is still DBEDT and not DLNR?

Okay.

Is-- am I reading this incorrectly?

Shall we put that into the committee report to look at that issue?

But-- sure. At this point, though, I'm still a little--

And then you will-- did you check it there?

No. I'm voting what's in front of me--sorry--and what's in front of me is no.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right. Now you can't change your vote.

Okay, now I can't. I just want-- thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair.

Any comments or concerns? Seeing none.

So, Chair, did you say you're gonna put in the committee reports the thought of changing the DBEDT to DLNR?

Look at-- yes. Look at the may being should it be with DBEDT or should it be with DLNR?

Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

Okay. Members, we're voting on SB 3169 SD 1; recommendation to pass with amendments. Are there any reservations?

Reservations.

Shimizu. Noting the no of Rep. Iwamoto, any other noes? Chair, your recommendation's adopted.

Okay. Thank you. Next up, we have SB 17, SD 2, Maui Wildfire Working Group. The Chair's recommendation is to make technical amendments. The bill already has a blank appropriation.

We're, we're gonna defect the date to 07/01/3000. We're gonna take DLNR's amendments to add in the insurance commissioner and also add the comment of working group shall be aligned with the state wildfire act strategy. And we're gonna also take Kamehameha School's amendments, or Kamehameha School's tech amendments, and take—and we're gonna take HECO's amendments also. Any comments or concerns? Sure. Yes.

Adding HECO?

Yeah. That's HECO's amendment. With the wild—with the wildfire.

So, so, HECO's gonna be added to the work?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. We're taking HECO's amendments. So, yes. Thank you.

Okay. Vice chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you. Next up, we have SB 3014, relating to turtles. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD 1, deferring the effective date to 7/1/3000, and, if necessary, adding technical amendments.

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

[Roll Call]

K. Next up, we have SB 3032 SD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD one and defecting the date to 07/01/3000. No tech amendments needed on this. Any comments or concerns?

Seeing none, question for the vote.

Chair, Excuse me, I I didn't catch you in time. But, I guess my concern is we we we do have a HB 2395 which crossed over and it was approving certain collection of sand and materials and just wondering if this this this bill would be a conflict with that.

So I'll be voting with reservations.

Okay. Vice chair for the vote.

Okay. We're voting on SB 3032 SD1, recommendation pass with amendments. Holding the reservation of Shimizu. Any other reservations? Any noes?

Recommendation adopted.

Okay.

Thank you, chair. So from hearing testimony, I do have some amendments to propose for consideration. On page two, I propose to delete lines 16 through 19. On page three, delete lines 10 through 20. And on page four, delete lines one to two. And what this does is it removes the language related to creating the state historical area.

Thank you. Next up, we have SB 1432 SD2. I will defer to the area representative for this.

We heard that from council member, and I believe DHL mentioned something about it in their testimony too. And on page eight, between lines seven and eight, add a new reporting requirement for, that'll read the Department of Hawaiian Homelands and the Department of Land and Natural Resources shall submit to the Department of Health for inclusion in the annual report a summary of their respective activities in and related to Kolawao County, including efforts involving community engagement and consultation.

On page 50, line 14, adding a new section that reads upon parts two and three of this act taking effect and subject to the approval of the director of the Department of Health, The County of Maui may request funding from the state for costs associated with the transfer of jurisdiction powers, duties, and responsibilities under this chapter provided that any funds granted shall be subject to legislative appropriation. This section shall be repealed two years after parts two and three take effect.

On page 50, in the current section 43, add at the end of the section on page 51 line three, repeal language so that this section shall be repealed two years after part two and part three take effect.

On page 51 line 13, change the timeline for transition to the county from one year to two years. So it'll read this actual and and defect redefect the date. This act shall take effect on 07/01/3000, provided that parts two and part three of this act shall take effect on the date two years after the passing of the last full or part time resident patient residing in Kalaupapa as affirmed in the governor's proclamation as described in section 42 of this act.

And on page 51, add a new section on line nine to in response to the community's desire to eventually transition to a Molokai County. So this sec new section would read, nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the legislature from establishing a new county encompassing the Island Of Molokai in the future or to limit the ability of the residents of Molokai to pursue self governance through the creation of such a county.

And then finally, page 51, add a new section on line 11. It's just severance clause if any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid in invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act. And, that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. And to this end, the provisions of the act are separable. So that's the severance clause, that I got from the LRP book.

And renumbering lines and sections, any technical, non substantive amendments, and then redefencing.

Okay. Any comments or concerns? Did you guys get all of that? Okay. No no issues.

Good. Everybody's voting straight up. Vice chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on SB 1432. SD two HD one, recommendation to pass with out of amendments. No reservations. No noes.

Okay. Recommendation adopted.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Moving on for our decision making from previous bills. First up, we have SB 2002 SD 2 relating to water.

I talked to the introducer on this bill, and we've both been working through how do I say this? We've been both been working through the Mauna Kea issue where we hastily changed well, so hastily, we changed the the governance of Mauna Kea. And now we're in a situation where there's hundreds of people's jobs are on the line, and we've lost probably hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars in investments because of the uncertainty that we inflicted on the telescope.

So and I feel that the commission on water is even greater than the Mauna Kea issue, because this is statewide. As Ernie Ernie Lau always says, there's nothing more important than water.

And that is absolutely true. Without water, land has no value. We found out that you can't even do a golf course without water. Right? So this has far more reaching.

This will probably affect thousands of people and billions of dollars if we mess this up. So before we I don't feel comfortable changing Seawarm with just one bill. I think we need a better plan, and it needs to be thought out thoroughly before we go changing the commission on water. So with that, I believe every all the members have a proposed I'm gonna propose working group and the structure in front of you.

So the chair's recommendation is to create a working group to improve the organization of c work. So that way, they come back to us and tell us what what what is a better structure to go forward, so we don't make the same mistake again.

So this work this working group shall evaluate and make recommendations regarding the governance and structure of the commission on water resource management to ensure that it effectively fulfills the constitution public trust responsibilities while maintaining operational efficiency and implementation capacity. Their working group shall evaluate whether the current leadership structure supports effective governance and implementation, including whether the chairperson of the of DLNR should serve as the chairperson on the commission of water management.

The expect the expectations, workload support necessary for the chairperson and the commission to effectively carry out their duties. And whether the compensation or other structures supports for the commin commission commissioners are necessary to enable effective performance of their duties. Two, assess the appropriate administration relationship between CWRM and the department of, well, DLNR.

Three, evaluate the need for independent counsel and dedicated executive leadership, I. E. The executive director. Four, identify targeted statutory amendments to improve accountability, efficiency, and clarity of authority. Five, develop recommendations for implementation, including any necessary transition plans to ensure continuity of operation.

The working group shall focus on governance and structural issues and shall not duplicate or replace existing permanent or regulatory process. The core k. So the core working group membership.

The working group shall be convened by the chairperson of the of the board and BLNR or the chairperson's designee and shall include for govern government and governance chairperson of the chairperson of the board and land and natural resources, BLNR, chairperson of the commission of water resource manage management, the attorney general, and the director of health or their designees. Or so all these everybody or their designees.

Commission representation, two members of the Commission on Water Resource Management provided that the members do not constitute quorum of the commission. Native Hawaiian trust perspective, we're gonna add OHA. One representative from OHA, one representative from DHHL. And for operations, first deputy chairperson chairperson of the commission on water of CWRM or designee or one staff level one staff level representative on CWRM. K.

County stakeholders well, two representatives from the county of water supply agencies with representation both from Oahu and neighbor islands. One representative from the large landowner or agriculture water user. One representative from the development or housing sector. Advisory group, the advisory working group may provide additional participants to serve in an advisory capacity, including environmental organizations, county planning and permitting departments, engineering and hydrology experts, cultural practitioners, and labor labor representative, labor representatives. Advising participants may provide input into the working group, but shall not vote on recommendations.

Deliverables, the working group shall provide an interim update to the legislature at the end of 2026. Oh, prior to the yeah.

At the 2026 or prior to the regular session of 2027 and submit a final report at the end of 2027 prior to the prior to the 2028 legislature. Is that correct? Yeah. So the sun this was the working group of sunset on 01/01/2008.

Eight.

Yeah. Sorry. It's already done. Sorry. This the working group was sunset on 01/01/2028.

Yes. Chair.

Alright. So it was with the members. Any questions or concerns?

Yes.

Thank you. I had serious concerns about this massive change, and I just wanna commend you're working really hard on this with the introducer. So thank you for that comment.

But there everybody is advised, basically.

Good. Yes.

Chair, my concern is that you include one representative of a large landowner, agricultural water user, and one represented from the development or housing sector. But you've validated environmental people who protect our environment to an advisory group. And

Yeah, I mean

Are there 40 members?

It looks like those two individuals are part of the voting group of

what they Those people okay. The way I see it, they own land, so they're affected. Right? Like, ADC has land, so they're affected. DHHL has land.

Well, OHA doesn't have land. No. OHA does have large tracts of land, so they're affected. It's mainly the large the people that control large land, and that's why they're on here.

No. What do you mean? And I would argue that

Have no skin in the game?

Yes. And I'm just stating that it would be nice to give voting powers to people who, you know,

Sorry.

There's a lot of environmental people who'd submitted testimony on the original bill who spent a lot of time they spend a lot of time protecting our resources beyond an economic dollar sign. Whereas I feel like you've put economic interests in a voting capacity and you put environmental protect those who are, you know, are who help us protect our environment and our natural resources into into an advisory, like your thoughts are cute, a position.

And I would just ask that you reconsider and put people numbers of of those parties.

It's like a massive board. I don't know how you can put people numbers.

Well, you just have two. Now my only point is you have two people to get one landowner and one developer. Can you put one in the environmental organization and maybe a labor representative in two or maybe two environmental organizations.

Will you vote a straight yes on the bill if we do?

Oh, yes. Okay.

We'll put the you know what? We gotta then then we gotta decide.