Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Aloha, mai kakou. Good afternoon. Mahalo for joining today's AEN and WLA and EIG hearing. It's Friday, March 20th, and we're convening here in Room 224. And video conferencing, which includes the audio and video of remote participants, that's being streamed live on YouTube. In the unlikely event that this hearing's cut short, the committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business on Monday, March 23rd at 3:05 p.m. here in Room 224 during AEN's time slot, and a public notice will be posted on the legislature's website.

And because of our 90-minute time limit for hearings, there'll be a two-minute time limit for all testifiers, and we'll have the virtual countdown timer on the Zoom screen. So, the measure we are discussing today is HB 1979 HD 3, relating to environmental review: shortens the period during which certain judicial proceedings involving environmental assessments and environmental impact statements on actions that propose the use of land for or construction of affordable housing or clean energy projects must be initiated.

Specifies that appeals from environmental courts that involve actions that propose the use of land for or construction of affordable housing or clean energy projects meet one of the grounds for transfer to the Supreme Court. First up is Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. Mary Alice Evans.

Good afternoon, chairs and members. I'm Mary Alice Evans, the Director of the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. We've offered comments on this measure, but we're very happy with the changes made in the HD 3 which deleted the provision that would have not allowed for attorney's fees for plaintiffs. I want to point out that this does not take away the ability of anyone to initiate a complaint about an EA, EIS, or exemption notice.

Also that for environmental assessments, they have had a 30-day period to file a complaint since this chapter was passed in the '70s, I think. So, that has worked well, and so for these two specific types of actions, affordable housing and clean energy installations, it-- where an EIS is required to be determined to be appropriate to be filed, that then matches what EAs have had all this time. So, I think, given that these are important types of actions that our public wants and the legislature has said are a priority, we feel that this would be a reasonable bill to adopt. Thank you.

Thank you. Leialoha Makuanani from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Aloha kakou, chairs and vice chairs. My name is Leialoha Makuanani, on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. We'll mostly stand on our written comments, but I'll just highlight a few things. We do appreciate the prior amendments to this bill and believe it has improved, especially with the removal of the attorney fee restriction provision. We do still have some concerns that this may have a chilling effect on legitimate public interest claims, which can often be our native Hawaiian beneficiaries seeking to enforce the existing environmental and cultural constitutional protections.

We're concerned about the reduction of the time to file from 120 days to 30 and think that's a pretty large jump, especially when it's concerning a lack of environmental review where you have no public notice. And similarly, with the filings regarding a failure for an agency to make a formal determination on whether an EIS is required, you're also gonna have some limited public notice constraints there.

So it can just take a lot more time sometimes than 30 days without that public notice requirement for people to know that a project is proceeding and be able to have adequate amount of time to file for those specific instances. So we recommend removing those provisions, or at a minimum, extending that timeline to better balance the public interest. Mahalo for your time, and I'm available for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next is Isaac Moriwake from Earthjustice.

Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, members of committee. Isaac Moriwake from Earthjustice. I literally just ran in because the building had been shut down. They weren't even letting people come up the elevator. So I'll try to organize my thoughts here, but you do have our written testimony and we stand in that in opposition. Really, this is an example of what you could call HIPAA scapegoating, basically blaming Chapter 343 on this or that problems of why we can't get this project done or whatnot.

Let me be clear. Earthjustice supports affordable housing. As many of you know on this committee, we've been supporting clean energy projects the last two decades, right, at the frontlines of promoting that, and 343 is not the issue, right? If there's no significant impacts to clean energy project, by all means go forth, exempt it, you know, issue your finding of no significant impact, and on we go. If there is an impact, do your homework, disclose that to the public, work with the community, community benefits, or what have you.

So there's this process there for a reason. This law has been on the books for 50 plus years at this point, right, and scapegoating HIPAA, even for these projects that we want and we prefer, is really not the answer. It's not the solution, and as we see in our testimony, we would urge these committees-- I know it was quite a feat to schedule this triple committee on a Friday afternoon, so thank you for doing that. It's providing this opportunity, but, really, this is not a solution. We have all have better things to focus on to prioritize these clean energy projects and affordable housing projects that we really do need. Mahalo. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, Isaac. Next is Julie Yunker from Hawaii Gas.

Hey. Good afternoon, chairs, vice chairs, and members of the committee. Julie Yunker with Hawaii Gas. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We offer our comments on HB 1979 HD 3. Hawaii's renewable energy policy is grounded in Section 269-91 HRS. To ensure consistency with existing law and support all recognized renewable resources, the definition of clean energy project should align with that framework rather than limit eligible technologies.

As Hawaii transitions its energy system, emerging technologies such as renewable hydrogen, renewable gas, and the infrastructure that supports them must be included as well. We respectfully request consideration of amendments to define clean energy by referencing the definition of renewable energy in HRS Section 269-91. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Julie. Next is Beth Amaro from Kauai Island Utility Coop on Zoom. You there, Beth?

Yes. Aloha. Good afternoon, chairs, vice chairs, and members of the committees. We stand in strong support of this bill, stand on our testimony, and very briefly, the bill does not diminish environmental review requirements and it doesn't limit public participation or legal challenges. However, litigation can create uncertainty for projects, and unless there's a clear way forward and a timeline for resolving the issues, that's when projects can die. Uncertainty can kill projects, and we've experienced this firsthand at KIUC. We hope that you can continue to move this bill forward, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Mahalo.

Thank you, Beth. Ron Tubbs on Zoom from Hawaii Sustainable Reef Fisheries.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. Dave Mulinix on Zoom from Greenpeace Hawaii.

Okay. Oh. Oops. Hold on. There we go. Okay. Aloha. Good morning. Dave Mulinix, Greenpeace Hawaii. We stand in strong opposition. First, a very short 30-day window to appeal violations of environmental review laws, including and especially actions or approvals that evade the law altogether, is unreasonable and unrealistic.

Second, asserting that environmental review is delaying affordable housing projects is misleading and misrepresents the facts. Currently, there are several affordable housing projects in Hawaii that have completed environmental review but remain unbuilt or delayed or empty due to excessive permitting delays, financial problems, or infrastructure obstacles.

Shortening the window on environmental review won't come close to addressing the real problems that are delaying affordable housing projects. So, environmental review is not the problem. You know, it's, like, got permitting problems, et cetera. So thank you very much. Please oppose this legislation. Have a good day.

Thanks, Dave. Next is Wayne Tanaka from Sierra Club on Zoom.

Good afternoon, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committees. Wayne Tanaka from Sierra Club to Hawaii. We are in strong opposition to this measure. I just wanna echo the concerns raised by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Earthjustice, and really emphasize the on-the-ground reality of what it takes for concerned citizens with bona fide concerns, including, you know, public health concerns that could impact residents of affordable housing projects or neighborhoods by clean energy projects.

It takes a lot of time and resources just to gear up to file a intervention if one's needed, you know, even-- and folks may not even know that an action isn't approved until after the 30-day deadline, as OHA pointed out, especially when there's no environmental review compliance at all. And so, essentially, this measure just punishes, you know, the public and incentivizes hiding the ball from folks who are, you know, promoting more controversial projects under 343. I'm happy to answer any questions, and thank you for your time. Mahalo.

Thank you, Wayne. Next is Sherry Pollack from 350 Hawaii on Zoom.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Wonderful. Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committees. My name is Sherry Pollack, and I'm with 350 Hawaii. We stand in strong opposition to this measure. We do appreciate some of the amendments that have come through that did improve some of the other issues previously raised, but this measure still is very problematic.

As one of the co-founders of an organization working to end the fossil fuel pollution damaging our climate and speed the transition to clean energy, in addition to volunteer efforts--I'm personally involved in assisting the houseless--I really take issue with the scapegoating of environmental reviews and the false narrative being put forward by this measure. Pitting communities against each other as is being done in this measure is a recognized strategic divide-and-conquer tactic used by corporations and developers to advance projects, secure resources, and minimize opposition. This bill doesn't address or fix the delay problem.

The truth is, a good project isn't really good if it's executed in a way that is bad. Think Kahuku wind turbines. When projects aren't done well, including not providing an opportunity for robust community engagement, even if the intentions are good, it ultimately does more harm in the end and hinders future efforts. With regards to affordable housing, scapegoating environmental reviews only serves to promote a false narrative which will not fix a multifaceted problem that includes issues like stagnant wages, excessive permitting delays, and more.

In fact, currently, there are several affordable housing projects in Hawaii that have completed environmental reviews, but remain unbuilt or delayed or empty due to permitting, financing, or other infrastructure hurdles. While transitioning rapidly to clean energy and providing affordable housing are both critical to meet the needs of Hawaii residents and address the climate crisis, we can and should do so in a way that is sustainable in ensuring ecological protection is not sidelined. Mahalo--

Thank you, Sherry.

--for the opportunity.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to testify either in person or online on this measure?

Aloha. On Zoom?

Your name, please?

So, just making sure my video worked. I wasn't sure if I could get in. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Greg Misakian. I currently serve as the president of the Kukua Council, the vice president of the Hawaii Alliance for Retired Americans, I'm a director on my Condominium Associations Board, which is actually relevant to this issue--I'll explain very quickly---and I'm a former Waikiki Neighborhood Board member.

I'm speaking as an individual today, but I have very strong opposition to this bill. I would have gotten written testimony in, but I've been juggling a lot of things and we had our annual meeting for my association last night, and I was tracking it earlier, so I did get strong opposition in initially. The person that said it best was the previous testifier from 350 Hawaii. Listen to her. Her words resonate. They should resonate through all of you.

This is one of the worst bills I've seen through this session because you're taking the rights of the public away. You're also harming, potentially, the environment, and you're doing it for developers. So please-- I ask you with respect to please don't let this bill go forward any further. Mahalo.

Thank you, Greg. Anyone else? Members, any questions? Hearing none, we'll move into decision-making here. The chair's recommendation, due to the concerns we had-- let's see. Forty-three opposed, four in support, and four comments. So due to the concerns that were raised in the opposing testimony, particularly regarding the potential impacts on public participation and transparency, as well as the questions about whether this bill would meaningfully improve project timelines, I'm going to defer this bill indefinitely. This hearing is adjourned.

Good afternoon. We're convening the joint committees on water, land, culture, and the arts, agriculture, and environment, economic development, and tourism on our 01:02 PM agenda here in State Capitol Conference Room 224. First, Oh, we have two measures on the agenda. First is HB 2585 related to ag tourism which establishes statewide uniform standards to promote ag tourism across the state. Testifying first is the Department of Ag and Biosecurity.

[Inaudible testimony].

Thank you. Next, we have Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

[Inaudible testimony].

Thank you. ADC? Comments? Signed up next is Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Good afternoon, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of Hawaii Farm Bureau. We'll stand on our written testimony in support.

Thanks. Grassroot Institute. And Ola Mahina Gardens on Zoom.

Hello. I am a farmer on the Kona Coast. I've been farming this land for 22 years, and our family has been delivering to local grocery stores twice a week for those 22 years. Since COVID, we've had to change our model, and we rely heavily on agricultural tourism, including educational farm stays that include overnight stays. And I wanna make sure that we keep in mind that many family farms are only staying in business because we have diversified the ways that we bring in income.

And for many of us, this bill is a start up toward acknowledging that farms have had to diversify, have had to interact more with our tourism economy. But some of the very specific ways that we rely on that may be restricted by this bill. So I wanna speak up for the number of farmers in my community who rely on a farm stay somewhere on their farm. Those farm stays are hosted, they're tied to agricultural activities.

There are other activities such as farm tours, farm to table dinners, spa and wellness activities that are keeping us afloat.

And really the path to sustaining family farming has become a very narrow margin. And our family is our son who is now, my 18 year old, I'm very proud to have him be a young farmer who will go up. And he hopes and intends to farm as well. He would be the fourth generation farming in our family. And it's becoming a harder and harder thing to encourage them to do.

And while we're, most of us are not by nature innkeepers, many of us now rely on hosted farm stays and other agricultural activities that may not be the ideal when we picture how we rent farms to work in our community.

It is my opinion that if you want to sustain any amount of family farming, and particularly for farms that are contributing directly to food security and not just to specialty export products, we must allow farmers a diversity of pathways to continue to support their families and remain on their land. For us, this is sort of a do or die moment. We really cannot continue without the diversified income that we have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Signed up to testify next is Robert Harkajo- Ortejo. I may be pronouncing this entirely wrong. If not, Heather Korote on Zoom. Good afternoon.

Aloha, chairs, co chairs, and committee members. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. My My name is Heather Korote, and I support HB 2585 with five amendments that I proposed in my written testimony. I co own and operate a 1.7 acre commercial farm in South Kona where we contribute to the local food system and host a farm stay as part of our agritourism business. On our farm, agriculture takes more than twice the labor of agritourism, but earns only a fraction of the income.

Agritourism is what keeps farming possible, and without it, we would be forced to find off farm jobs or sell the farm we've spent the last fifteen years building and move somewhere that is more supportive of farmers making money. I feel like real farms need real solutions right now, and this bill should save farms, not create additional barriers.

And if agritourism is not allowed to be a viable part of a farm's income, then I think the committee should offer other real ways for farmers to make a living. And I'm just suggesting and requesting that you don't unintentionally hurt agriculture or make it harder for farms and farmers to produce food for Hawaii. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much. Also on Zoom, Steven Hogan.

Trying to get off. Well, hi, Oops. Can you hear me? This is Eve this is Eve Hogan.

Steve is with me. Let me see if I can get video. I don't know how to do this, guys. Okay. My name is Eve Hogan, and Steve and I are testifying on behalf of

We just sorry. We just lost your video. Oh, there you I think you're coming back. There you are. Okay.

Yeah. Hi.

Yeah.

My name is Eve Hogan, and Steve and I are using our time to testify opposition to bill HB two five eight five on behalf of Maui's Agricultural Working Group, which is the agricultural policy advisory committee to the Maui County Council when they're making laws that directly affect farmers and ranchers. This bill, as written, will effectively kill all ag tourism operations currently operating in Maui County. Ag tourism is the only way to keep farms and ranches viable in Hawaii.

The definition of secondary to the principal farming operation means the use of a parcel of land that generates annual revenue that is less than the annual revenue generated from the principal farming operation or agricultural operation conducted on the parcel of land will shut down all ag tourism businesses and most of the agriculture that is supported by ag tourism in Maui County. There will be no more pineapple farm, no more lavender farm, no pumpkin patch, strawberry farm, winery, no more goat dairy, no sacred garden.

I could list every single agricultural tourism operation, and they will all be shut down because of this one requirement written by someone who has no clue about farming in the Hawaii in the twenty first century. With my no migrant labor, astronomically expensive inputs, astronomical insurance costs, huge mortgages and escalating land costs, stratospheric fuel costs, blight, drought, flooding, aging farmers, tens of thousands of stampeding deer, volatile and changing climate patterns, today's weather is a perfect example of the challenges that we face.

You need to seriously please rethink this bill before crippling families, farmers, and ranchers statewide. We have other issues with this bill, but this is the one that will put the last nail in the coffin

Thank you. Your time is up.

For our agricultural producers. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

That's everyone who had signed up to testify on SB or excuse me, HB 2585. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure?

Aloha, chair from the Zoom.

Excuse me. Chair, I have to leave for to catch a flight, and the airlines have instructed us to be at airports three hours now before flights. But I do have one issue that I just wanted to share, then I can leave if you don't mind.

Sure, Please.

Okay, please. Thank you. I appreciate, we're farmers. And there's a concern that I have, and I'm glad Farm Bureau is here, with regards to diseases. The anthurium industry had, the anthurium blight back in the eighties, and a concern that I have, not only anthuriums, but anytime there is a disease, is a concern, for neighboring farmers, farms.

Now I point on page six, we have an, Ryan, please, if you can help them, page six under G, where it says the operator of a farming operation shall have thirty days to notice that in case there is pest diseases or market supply disruptions where the farms will be seized, but in the event of a disease, the thirty days is not going to be, I mean, it has to be immediate.

And why I say that is any time there is a disease, it's already going to be transferred to other areas or the next farm. But I think, if we can perhaps look at the disease and pest infestation area, limit the notification to almost immediate, if you don't mind, because notifying the, the county or whoever has the, the permit system, it's gonna be too long, to notify people if there is pests and, diseases. So I urge some consideration to only identify that particular area for notifications. Thank you.

Good luck getting home stay dry.

I know. Thank you. Thanks a lot. Thanks, folks.

Okay. Thanks, for everyone's indulgence. Why don't we return to I think there were two folks on Zoom. Up first, let's take Hunter Hevelin.

Thank you, chair. Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, members. Hunter Heaivilin here on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union. Offer, some takes from our membership, which is divided on this issue, but I think it highlights that the experience of agricultural production and the myriad, issues one must face are not uniform across the state. You know, we've heard from producers today and there's other in in written testimony, and I've met with many across,

the islands who are our members who find it very difficult to operate on a small parcel with high land costs, high property tax, thin to no labor market, and distant markets to sell their products. As a result, they've diversified their incomes through many means and any means that vary, One of which has been agritourism.

While the potential effects as expressed as concerns by other producers are the potential to increase property prices as a result, I think that the need that's highlighted by this diversity of perspectives is that the ability for counties to individually regulate and determine how they would like to govern agritourism seems like an important power for them to retain. By example, many of the small farms across the islands are, you know, under 10 acres. Right?

And we can look back to folks leaving plantation labor contracts in the late 1800s who were throwing their hands up with what how how are they supposed to provide for their family on a five acre parcel? And that is a completely different economy with much lower land prices and much greater labor access than we find for many smallholders today.

So forwarding, you know, a hundred years hence, I think it is reasonable to allow producers multiple opportunities so long as they are actively engaged in meaningful production. The reliance on bonafide farming, I think, is one avenue that could see this type of measure move forward in future years, and there is a measure that currently moving forward in the other chamber that I think would help define that and could be better built upon in, coming sessions.

But for the current juncture, this is an existential concern for many operations, And so I would recommend retaining the the jurisdiction at the county level.

Thank you. Let's move on to mister Misakian.

Mahalo. Aloha again, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I was trying to read through the bill, and I these are bills that I'm very interested in. And, unfortunately, I missed the scheduling for this, and I've been very busy over the past week. But I what I do hear from both sides is interesting.

I know enough about the bill to just state from my experience, from the Big Island with the Kona coffee farm that I didn't own, but I it was family owned, and so I have familiarity with I was part of the KPFC, Kona Pacific Farmers Cooperative, where there were quite a few people involved. And they had retail shop in the front, and they had a tour you could go through where they made you know, they had the coffee producing, things like that.

But that was on a combined joint land. But I do feel that it's difficult for people in this economy to to survive. So whatever it comes from this bill, I'm just gonna make a comment that I heard something about, you know, the amount of money that revenue stream or something based on that versus the square footage of the land.

I think the key factor is the square footage of the land. We're trying to get the most ag. I think we need to have more food production on the islands. So let's focus on if you have a little retail area or something, it's a portion of the the, acreage, and then your farm needs to be a certain portion if that's anything you can put in this bill or that's relevant to this bill. So I apologize for not going through the whole bill.

Before this, I just got caught up into this. I'm here for actually another, group of bills or one bill, but thank you for just letting me make that comment because I think it's very important to, to look at that. Mahalo.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none, are there any questions?

It's ATC here. Can we get ATC.

I don't think they were in the room. They did submit testimony.

No one from HTA. You you know that? Farm bureau, did you guys submit testimony? Can can you guys

Another jacket. It makes me look skinny, so I'm sorry. Kasumi got that.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So what's the thoughts within your membership in regards to this bill?

Thank you, Senator Brian Miyamoto. Yeah. For the Hawaii Farm Bureau. Sometimes it can be split and that's why our testimony is supporting the intent. Again, we support agritourism, period.

But we also wanna ensure that it's not being abused. We wanna make sure that there's active farming, active agriculture as connected with ag with agritourism along with other secondary uses. But we also agree with and we said it in testimony previously, the farm revenue requirement sometimes may not make sense. You can start off producing just agriculture and maintaining a certain production and certain revenue, and then you start some agritourism, which doesn't interfere impede your farm production, and it's lower than the farm revenue.

So if this bill passed, it would be allowed. But as your agriculture tourism increases, which is helping the farmers, profitability, it could exceed your farm revenue, but you haven't reduced your farm production output. So again, there are some nuances that we need to to look at. One of our members did talk about the overnight stays. And, again, how do we put in the safeguards so that we can allow, as, farmers union, mister Heaivilin said, you know, bonafide true agriculture. And the the primary and it's all been our position.

Primary activity on ag land should be ag production. Everything else is secondary, but we also understand that as you heard some of the testifiers, we do need these accessory uses to help the farmers maintain. Sometimes it will help them pay for the the loss of production, especially times of now. So I think another testifier, spoke on that. Right now, we need to have at least some, provisions for force majeure.

We're not gonna see any.

So so Sorry. When I look at, so I'll take Maui, upcountry Maui, you know, some of those properties in upcountry Maui, which are really, like, smaller farms. You know? And they diversified because the cost of those lands and the land tax is killing them. You know? And like you, I've always been a strong supporter of ag, agritourism so that we always see a value added products, trying to educate our visitors.

I mean, we're putting the cart before the horse in this bill, or how do you try to address that? Making sure those farms, which a lot of them are new up upcoming, some are existing, generational. How do you help them to stay in business? Because they're literally at their breaking point. I think Kula Country Farms, you know, Sydney guys who are up there.

How do we help that if the response now is do we put the nail on a coffin and bury it, or do we try and work through this bill, or do we take the time during the interim to have this conversation and maybe split apart or look at some of the other bills that we have?

Thank you, Senator. And I think that's a policy decision on your side, but that is an example of all the testimonies submitted. You see folks opposing, folks saying we need this. We need some continuity, some uniformity. We wanna force almost forced the counties to enact the ordinances so we can do agritourism, and you have others say, no.

This is going to shut us down. You know, chapter 205 is able to lay out our permissible uses what's allowed, but also from a zoning perspective and individual counties, yes, they may be better suited for exactly what the standards are as far as they like for for agritourism. Again, we support agritourism, but we understand there are some complexities as far as that particular segment of agriculture is. And this bill is pretty broad and makes some, I wouldn't say sweeping changes, but some big changes.

Again, I don't think anybody really wants to see another working group or another task force.

But we really wanna empower farmers and ranchers to allow them to do agritourism, but we want it to be done by the bona fide farmers and ranchers. And, again, we still haven't defined that in statute yet.

So I know you're not HTA, but you're Brian Miyamoto who's been in just about every subject matter, agritourism. How many farms, in your opinion, today do you believe engage in agricultural tourism activities, and do you know where they're located at?

Thank you, Senator. I don't know if I have an accurate number. I know we at 1 point, up form the Agri Tourism Association, and I'm not sure if they have a true grasp. I think there are I couldn't tell you an exact number. Again, it's something that we want to allow farmers and ranchers to do if they are farming and ranching, if they are producing the food, feed, fiber, fuel, and floriculture.

We had vibrant discussion yesterday about land use. Alright. We had a lot of land use, and this, again, is another land use issue, but there is room in agriculture for true agritourism. And, again, as we diversify our economy and diversify even tourism, agritourism is something that people want and it helps us to educate about what we do as far as agriculture here in the state of Hawaii. So again, we support it a little bit more complex.

And we will provide whatever input we can based on the diversity of our membership to, if possible, come up with some some if the legislature decides on uniformity or uniform standards, what's in the best interest of the agriculture sector.

Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Further questions? Real quick, Brian. Sorry. Not off the hook yet. Just wanted to dive in.

I think I heard a couple of testifiers talking about revenue and one of the thresholds in here is revenue generated. Right? Majority versus there's not as it relates to what is the primary use of ag lands. Assuming that for a minute and set that aside and look at, the actual activities.

If you have a farm that's growing stuff and, you know, legitimate farming, doing their thing, and over time, they do, whatever agritourism stuff that's sort of the secondary purpose, but that begins generating the vast majority of their revenue, say, 75 to 80% or something.

Does that then make that the primary purpose? Like where where do you in your mind is the threshold?

Thank you, chair. And I think that's a discussion that we really haven't come on a decision on, but that's something that we've brought up. Again, if it's not impacting the the farm production, if it's maintained or it could be growing, still growing, but the ag tourism component grows faster. Again, agritourism serves a purpose to support agriculture also, not just from an income and a revenue standpoint, and from an education and from an outreach standpoint.

So that is something that that could truly impact a bonafide farmer doing real ag and also doing real ag tourism.

So I we haven't been able to answer that question. I think from our standpoint, we would say it's the same production or even increased production. And maybe they're doing the ag tourism on marginal lands or there's no interference really in the actual ag production. A farmer or rancher shouldn't be penalized for that.

Let me follow-up and just ask, and I guess this is not the first year this has come up by any stretch, but, were there ever along the way recommendations from task force or working group or something that came toward as close as you can get to what would be alignment? I mean, amongst the various folks within the ag community.

I think one of the the more robust discussions was probably recently at the city level, City and County of Honolulu with the land use ordinance update with Bill 64 because agriculture, again, it's a land use issue and and what qualifies, what should qualify a producer to enable them to to be able to do agritourism. A lot of that came up to percentage of production on the ag land versus, I think, a revenue trigger or revenue threshold.

A percentage of land being used.

Percentage of land being used. Yes.

Yeah. Okay.

And, again, those are also discussions that not all the land is farmable. Is it the percentage of the farmable land and what is a fair percentage?

Thank you. Okay. If there's no further questions, why don't I turn it over to my, esteemed co chair from the Economic Development Committee to move into the next bill.

Thank you. Thank you to my handsome co chair. We'll be moving on to

HB 2618, relating to environment. First one up, Gwen Yamamoto Lau.

I'm here for <unintelligible> because she didn't know where to <unintelligible> so she texted me and asked me to stand on her testimony in support.

Thank you, Mary Alice. Next up, Manu Tupper, Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee, we'll stand on our written testimony in support, but just wanted to also call your attention to our one suggested technical amendment on page 2 of our testimony; just that we believe that <unintelligible> conservation special fund should be subject to a 100% restriction. I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Ian Robertson, Deputy Attorney General with Attorney Generals on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Thank you. Melissa Pavlicek for Care for Aina Now Coalition in support, Liza Benyshek, Nature Conservancy in support, Ted Bolan in support for Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition, Mufi Hannemann, president, Hawaii Lodging and Tourism Association in support, and Beth Anderson in support. Anybody else wishing to testify on this measure?

Aloha, Chair. From Zoom.

Sure. Go ahead.

Thank you again. Appreciate the chance. My name is Greg Misakian, and again, I'm just here for this-- for the session after this, but I wanna just ask that you take one look at one thing on this that I just saw. On the draft itself, on the latest version, HD 1, in Section 2B where it says-- B2, where it says planning, construction, and repair of facilities, I would think you might need to add a couple of words there for the types of facilities because-- I don't know.

It could be wrong. It could be codified properly within the bill as drafted, but it could mean any facility, and I think this is geared towards public lands, natural resources, beaches, so when the word facilities popped up, it just drew my attention. So I did scan through the bill, and that's my only comment, if you take a look at that. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify on the measure? IT, do we have anybody else on Zoom?

No one else on Zoom, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any questions? Of course the Attorney General's Office is not here, which I had some questions for. Okay. Brief recess. [Recess].

Alright. We're reconvening the joint committees on Water, Land, Culture and the Arts, Agriculture, and the Environment, and Economic Development and Tourism on our 1:02pm agenda here in state capitol conference from 224 for decision making.

Up first is House Bill 2585 relating to agricultural tourism. Appreciate the discussion and, various perspectives. The chairs having conferred, what we'd like to do is keep the conversation going but amend the bill so that it's a task force to sort this out to make recommendations back to the legislature on exactly how to fill the gaps in some of the conversation, figure out what the appropriate thresholds and various things look like in this.

So that'll be the recommendation as this goes on to the Ways and Means Committee. Any discussion?

Seeing none, Vice Chair, acting Vice Chair for the vote.

Yep. Members, we're voting on HB 2585 HD 3. Recommendation of the chair is to pass with amendments. Chair Lee votes aye.

Yes.

Aye.

Senator Lamosao also votes aye, and Senator DeCorte is excused. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Vice Chair Inouye is excused. Senator Chang?

Thank you. Same recommendation for AEN. Chair votes aye. Senator Rose?

Chair's recommendation on HB 2585 is to pass with amendments. Chair Gabbard votes yes. Senator Richards is excused. Senator DeCoite?

I'll vote yes. Senator Awa is excused. Recommendation's adopted.

Yes.

Thank you, members.

Same recommendation on the Committee on Economic Development and Tourism. I'm sure we'll fight for the vote. Chair goes aye.

Aye.

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

I vote yes. Senator Fukunaga is excused. Senator Kim excused. Senator Fevella.

Thank you. Next bill, HB 2618 HD 1, relating to the environment. You know, we-- there seems to be a lot of issues with this bill trying to clarify the Green Fee, terms that need to be identified in a new special fund as well as being able to find the Solar Photovoltaic Energy Storage Loan Program as referred to. So there's just a bunch of things that needs to be worked through to this bill.

Our chairs have confided in each other and believe that we should take the time during interim to take a look at this bill and work more on it. For those reasons, recommendation by Economic Development and Tourism is to defer this bill.

Sorry. Am I speaking on this one?

Yep.

Water, Land Committee, same recommendation.

And same recommendation for AEN.

With that, we are adjourned. Thank you. With that, we are adjourned. Thank you.

Good afternoon. We're convening the joint committees on Water, Land, Culture, and the Arts, and Agriculture and the Environment on our 1:03 PM agenda, in State Capital Conference Room 224, we have a number of measures up beginning with House Bill 1553 relating to habitat conservation plans, which requires any existing habitat conservation plan that does not include an agreement for emergency medical and rehabilitation services for effective native wildlife to be amended to include such agreements.

Testifying first on HB 1553, is DLNR on Zoom?

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. That's everybody who had signed up to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on HB 1553? Seeing none. Alright.

All right. Seeing as there's no one to ask questions of while we move on to the next measure, HB 1774, relating to centralized access to resources which requires and appropriate funds for the Hawaii Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission to develop, implement, and maintain a centralized resource website to connect residents to support resources to address affordability, health, safety, and impacts of climate change.

Testifying first is the Climate Adaptation--excuse me--Climate Change Mitigation Adaptation Commission. No? That's everybody who had signed up to testify on this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on HB 1774? Seeing none. All right. There's no one to ask questions of. Let's move along.

Moving on to HB 1601 HD 2 relating to biosecurity, amends the amount and expending agency for fiscal year 2026-2027 appropriation for the Hawaii Invasive Species Council from the Department of Ag and Biosecurity to the Department of Land and Natural Resources. First up is DAB.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, .... Department of Ag and Biosecurity we stand on our written testimony in support.

Thank you. Next is, Patrick Chi from DLNR. Not present, in support. Stephanie Easley from, CGAPS.

Aloha, Chairs, Vice Chairs, members of the committee. My name is Stephanie Easley with the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. Thank you for getting this bill today and for the opportunity to testify. As you know, the Act 236 from last session transfers the functions of the Hawaiian Invasive Species Council from DLNR Administrative Authority to Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. That happens in 2030.

Act 236 transfers the funding for the operations of the HISC beginning July 1 of this year. This bill 1601 corrects that. It makes it so the funds will go to DLNR while DLNR is still the agency carrying out the operations of the HISC. We note there were two other bills that were introduced on the Senate side that made the same correction. Those vehicles are not moving forward, so this is the one that is still the last chance to make this correction.

I'm here if you have any questions, and thank you for hearing this bill.

Thank you, Stephanie. Next is Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on its written testimony in support.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to, testify on this measure?

For late, I apologize to step back to my desk. Yeah. I just wanna again, Greg Misakian. I know there's multiple committee hearings today.

So, Greg Misakian, I do wanna support this bill also, and I did review it previously, but I didn't have a chance to provide written testimony. So I do support it, and that's all I wanted to add. Mahalo.

Okay. Members, any questions? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go on to the next measure, HB 1616 HD 1; clarifies that the disposition of Ag park lots with commercial activity may occur after the initial development of the Ag park and regardless of whether the applicable county council approved plans and specs for the future disposition of lots for commercial activity with certain exceptions. Okay. Let's see. First up is DAB.

DAB stands on its written testimony with comments.

Next up--thank you--is Brian Miyamoto from Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on its written testimony supporting the intent.

Okay. Next is Eileen O'Hara from Malama O Puna. That's in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on HB 1616?

I would like the opportunity, sir.

Please. Come forward. State your name.

My name is Amedeo Markoff. I'm from Big Island. I flew out special for this. Hope I can get home tonight. Aloha, Chair and Vice Chair and members of the committee, or chairs. Apologies. My name is Amedeo Markoff, and I serve as the executive director of the Pahoa Lava Zone Museum and project manager of Malama O Puna and treasurer for the Pahoa Main Street Association.

I'm here today in strong support of HB 1616. For over two decades, Malama O Puna has worked on the frontlines of environmental stewardship, food security, and community development in Puna. Today, we are advancing a practicable, scalable solution to one of Hawaii's most persistent challenges: feral swine overpopulation.

At the same time, our community faces rising food insecurity and limited access to locally produced protein. HB 1616 helps resolve both those problems at once. In partnership with the PLZM, we-- MOP has already established a Department of Health-certified commercial kitchen. We support a state transit aid and Kilauea Recovery Funds. We're working to convert the facility into a USDA-certified cut and wrap operation.

In parallel, we are advancing a mobile slaughter unit that will allow the humane regulated processing of feral swine. However, for this system to function, we need the ability to properly site and operate components on this program on state Ag parklands in Puna. Without this bill, the system cannot scale.

With it, we will unlock a fully integrated community-based solution that reduces destructive impacts of feral pigs, creates local jobs in slaughter and butchery and food production, produces USDA certified locally sourced protein, provides food for families in need, and builds a new agricultural value chain rooted right here in Hawaii. We are also working in partnership with the University of Hawaii to ensure proper disease testing and safe-handling protocols.

This is not an unregulated effort. This is about bringing structure, safety, and opportunity to existing reality on the ground. What makes this approach powerful is that it aligns with multiple state priorities at once: food resilience, economic development, invasive species management, and climate-adaptive local systems. This is not theoretical. This project is ready.

The partnership's in a place, and the infrastructure is underway. HB 1616 allows the key-- is the key to allow this to operate at scale. On behalf of Malama O Puna, Pahoa Lava Zone Museum, and the broader Puna community, I respectfully ask for your strong support of HB 1616. Mahalo for the opportunity to speak today. I'm totally available to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Anyone else wishing to testify on HB 1616?

Members, any questions? Hearing none, we'll move on to the next measure. HB 2561, HD 2 declaring feral chickens on public lands as a public nuisance and controllable pest in the city with a population of 300,000 or more. Prohibits supporting feral chickens on public lands, including by feeding chickens. Prohibits the abandonment of chickens on public lands or on private property without consent and establishes fines and authorized enforcing agencies.

First up is City and County of Honolulu, Department of Customer Services. Here in support, Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you Chair, The Hawaii Farm Bureau stands on its written testimony in support.

Okay. And Brian Burns from Trooper's Chicken Rescue.

Yep. Can you hear me? Apologies for the appearance. I was down there in person in a suit that is now soaking wet in the back of my car. Mister Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, my name is Brian Burns.

I'm the founder and president of Trooper's Chicken Rescue, a veteran led 501c3 nonprofit in Oahu. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong opposition to House bill 2561 House Draft 2. I have personally reached out to every member of the House Ag Committee and many other representatives to help solve this problem properly, humanely, and collaboratively. I've received zero responses. Trooper's Chicken Rescue sorry.

I'm getting a call. Trooper's Chicken Rescue and I am pleading with the State to partner with us, not punish compassionate intervention, I apologize, which is what this bill does. Look at our website, and you will see we are not just a couple people with good intentions. Our board of directors is highly specialized to tackle this very problem, but we cannot do it alone. I have twenty years military special operations experience.

My vice president has her master's from George Washington University in Strategic Public Relations as well as her professional certifications in Grant Writing and Grant Management from San Diego State University. Our secretary completed Southern Utah University's running a life saving animal sanctuary certification program in summer of 2024. Additionally, our other two board members have been raising and rescuing farm animals for decades, and there's an army of volunteers in this island already doing the hard work begging for the state's support.

Instead, the state is only listening to constituents who complain about chickens and provide no real solution to the problem at hand. I'm here today to provide the state with a solution, not just complain about something.

Work with us to actually attack the systemic root causes of explosion of feral chickens on the islands the right way that will actually yield tangible results. This bill moves in the wrong direction. Punishing...

Thank you. Ryan, your time's up. Thank you very much for your testimony. Okay. Anyone else wishing to testify on 2561?

Please come forward.

Hi. My name is Ku'u Neilani, from .... Nice to meet you guys, and thank for listening to me. So, with the chickens and the other environmental things that are going on, the chickens are one natural way to eradicate the rhinoceros beetle and all these other pests that are they are natural fertilizer, reduce our carbon imprint, and they've been here since the Hawaiians came here. So, I understand that there's gotta be a better way than, you know, catching them and killing them.

And I've noticed that the coconut trees by my house where a whole bunch of chickens are the coconuts are growing back. I feel like if you guys eradicate all the chickens like this, then we're gonna have bigger problems with bigger pests that are a real problem.

I mean, the homelessness are a nuisance, but we don't just run them together and punish people for feeding them, do they? No. So why should we do this to the chickens? Thank you.

Yes.

So you are opposed to this measure?

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify? Please.

Hi, John Fukunaga. I just wanna clarify first. I'm testifying on my personal capacity, not as Public Defender of the State of Hawaii. You know, I I outlined bullet points in my testimony, issues with this bill, including issues of the drafting, legal issues, inconsistencies within the bill. So it's not just the subject of the bill itself.

So in order for you guys to support this bill, you'd have to ignore the fact that the last house committee that saw this bill or had this bill before it identified significant issues regarding humane treatment, cultural sensitivity, capacity of agencies, and community partners to implement the proposed requirements. Basically, there are so many issues with this bill that the House committee recognized. We actually got one of the members who introduced this bill to turn his vote to, oppose the bill.

In order to in order to support this bill, you'd have to ignore the significant issues with the bill, ignore the voices of your constituents. If you look at the number of votes in opposition to this compared to the number of votes in favor, there's a significant number.

I'm wrapping this up in just a Sec. And you would also have to ignore the cultural considerations. We have two native Hawaiian cultural practitioners who testified that this is not inconsistent with native Hawaiian cultural beliefs or values, and...

Your time's up.

Yep, Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Anyone else?

Chair?

Yes.

From Zoom. I had submitted a request to testify. That's the main reason I'm here today, so I was able to testify earlier, on important things also. Greg Mesakian. This is the main bill I'm here for today, and I waited this long.

So thank you. Greg Mesakian again, you know my background. I've said it earlier. I won't repeat to save time.

One day, I was called from my condominium building by a woman that saw a rooster that had been shot. Well, she thought he was shot. He was injured in a parking lot. And I spent an entire day, figuring out how to get to him first to get onto the land with, reasonable, permission and rescued him. And he had three pellets shot into him.

So there's there's evil on this island where people like to harm animals. I'm an animal lover. I'm only gonna read to you one thing, and it resonates to what was previously said. You see all the opposition. I ask all in this committee to please remember the cultural significance of chickens in Hawaii, the ancestral and spiritual ties from the time of the early Polynesians settled in Hawaii and brought chickens to the islands, that some in Hawaii regard chickens as Aumakua, if I said that properly, family guardians.

And please remember when your children watch Moana, the chicken and Moana. And that's in my written testimony, but I just wanted to get that onto the, the record, the video record so that hopefully all of you understand that, you know, if you're gonna do something, do it humanely. When these chickens are captured or trapped...

Greg, your time's up.

They're gonna be euthanized. Mahalo. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Any questions, members?

Senator Rhoads?

So it's, the bill refers to the way applicable to cities of a size of more than 300,000, which is a, by our standards, kind of a funny way to phrase it. Would it not, so the question is, would it not make more sense just to apply it to Oahu?

Question, Chair.

Because I don't know, I guess Honolulu has a population of more than 300,000, but I don't know how exactly you count on when the city and the county are the same entity.

So that's one thing. So then my other comment is in District 13, this bill is wildly popular. We have so many chickens in Chinatown, around this building up the Nu'uana Valley. And I'm a vegetarian, so I'm not, you know, I'm not, I'm all for humanely treating animals, but something really needs to be done in the urban area because they're everywhere. I grew up in the country.

I hear more roosters crowing in the morning in Chinatown than I ever on my father and mother's 38 acres out in Indiana. So it's, something needs to be done. Thank you.

Okay. And just for the record, there were 135 opposed and 7 in support of this bill, and two had comments. So we'll take a brief recess for decision making.

Chair. Sorry, I gotta quick question for the Farm Bureau. Since the part Department of Health. So Brian from the Farm Bureau has testified that this bill may lead to the authorized killing of feral chickens by private citizens. Do you agree or disagree, and why?

Brian Miyamoto, behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. I'm not sure if that's what our testimony says.

No no, yours doesn't say it, I'm just asking.

Again, we agree with many of the testifiers on both sides that, yes, there's a concern, but also we wanna make sure that it's done humanely. In fact, at our offices in Kunia, which is of agricultural district, agriculture area, we do have feral chickens also. And, we were actually encouraging them to be collected from the keiki, and then we'd give it to a farm, the nearby farms. Again, we wanna make sure, but they do sometimes pose some hazards and dangers and especially for our agriculture community.

This bill, we agree, we think it's only, for City and County Honolulu and only on public lands. But again, I think it's something I I'm born and raised here, I grew up on Oahu. Don't recall it ever being to this level. And again, from an agriculture association, we absolutely support.

We have poultry members. We have egg producers. We support animals and the well-being of animals. So we aren't suggesting that we want it done inhumanely, but we know that the populations will keep growing. We saw it in Kauai.

And on Oahu, I never thought it would be at this level, so we do want some level of control.

So you would agree because I think the word eradication is harsh, like, maybe the word manage.

Senator, yes. I think better managed, you know, certain areas, probably more welcoming. So, eradication as with any other, you know, some of the others, like, feral pigs and axis deer, we want them managed. We want the populations in a reasonable right? We want to allow for hunting and other subsistence gathering.

So for something like this, not like, I think, CRB was mentioned, we want that eradicated. But these, we would like to see managed.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. We'll take a brief recess for decision making.

Good afternoon. We're reconvening the joint committees on water, land, and arts, and agriculture and the environment for decision-making on our 01:03 PM agenda in Conference Room 224. Up first is House Bill 1553 relating to habitat conservation plans.

I'll just note, I was informed since we began this hearing that because of the shutdown, some of the administration or agency folks who were planning to be here were not able to be and were not able to get the Zoom link in time to testify so we won't hold that against them. So we'll move these measures on.

The recommendation is to move the measure on with amendments, simply changing the defective date to 01/01/3000. Further discussion. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, acting VIce Chair.

Okay. Member is voting on HB 1553 HD 1. The recommendation of the chair is to pass with amendments. Chair Lee. [roll call]

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Same recommendation for AEM. Any discussion? Chair votes aye. Acting Vice Chair Rhodes.

Chair's recommendation on HB 1553 is to pass with amendments. Chair Gabbard votes yes. Vice chair's excused. Senator DeCoite?

Yes.

I'll vote yes. Senator Wye is excused. Recommendation's adopted.

Thank you, members.

Thank you. Up next, HB 1774 relating to centralized access to resources. Similarly, we'd like to recommend passing with amendments, but striking lines six through nine on page four regarding the details of an appropriation, which basically just simplifies the appropriation and the measure as this goes on to the Ways and Means Committee. If there's no discussion on that, acting vice chair. Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Same recommendation for AEN. Any discussion? Chair votes aye. Senator Rhoads.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, members.

And then moving on to HB 1601 relating to Biosecurity. This is the chair's recommendation be to pass with amendments to defect the date to 07/01/2050. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

Senator Rhoads?

Chair's recommendation on HB 1601 is to pass with amendments.

[roll call]

Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members.

Thank you. Same recommendation for water or [inaudible].

Members voting on HB 1601 HD2 recommendation of the chair is to pass with amendments. Anyone present wanting to vote with reservations or no? Hearing none, Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you.

Moving on to HB 1616 related to Ag, disposition of agricultural park lots. On this and the chair's recommendation will be to pass with amendment to require the department to provide a notice to and consult with the applicable county prior to approving new commercial activities within Ag parks, including an opportunity for county comment to ensure local input while maintaining the bill's intent to support value added Ag operations.

Any discussion? Chair votes aye. Vice or Senator Rhoads, acting vice chair.

Chair's recommendation on HB 1616 is to pass with amendments.

[roll call]

Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members.

I'm sorry. Oh, no.

WAM and Land Committee, same recommendation.

Okay. For HB 1616 HD1, same recommendations, pass with amendments. Anyone present wanting to vote with reservations or no?

Hearing none. Chair, recommendation is adopted.

HB2561 HD2, relating to Feral Animals. The chair's recommendation on this will be to based on the opposition testimony, there's still a lot of concerns around how this would actually be enforced, the potential unintended impacts, and whether this is really the right approach to the problem. So with all these unresolved issues, I'll we'll be referring this manager indefinitely.

Oh, yes. Same recommendation for WLA.

And that concludes the hearing.

Good afternoon. We're convening the Joint Committees on Water, Land, Culture, and the Arts, Agriculture, and the Environment, and Public Safety and Military Affairs on our 02:15pm agenda here in State Capital Conference Room 224 on HB 175 related to property maintenance, which requires owners of lessees of real property to maintain their property and establish penalties for failure to do so. Testifying first is DLNR on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. Brian Miyamoto with Hawaii Farm Bureau. We stand on our written testimony in opposition.

Thank you. Extra points for showing up. And Hawaii Cattlemen's Council on Zoom.

Thank you, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. Nicole Galase on behalf of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council. We submitted testimony in opposition. Managing invasive species really is important statewide, but this bill will negatively impact agricultural producers even when they work towards invasive species mitigation as part of a necessary part of their business model.

There's examples from across the state of invasive species, such as albizia, Strawberry Guava, white ash, encroaching onto pastures from neighboring properties. This bill will be difficult to implement effectively and it will be a burden on our farmers and ranchers. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify on HB 175. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure?

Seeing none, are there any questions? Chair Fukunagu.

I guess, those who show up get to answer the questions. Farm Bureau.

[inaudible].

I noted in your, you know, testimony some of the concerns being raised by agricultural producers. And one of the things that we were examining in Senate Bill 17, which is looking to establish kind of a wildfire mitigation working group, also looks at examining a range of incentives and ways to address, good behavior and reward such behavior with incentives.

So would a combination of, incentives and or penalties, be something that would be a lot more workable, you know, from the standpoint of agriculture producers?

Thank you, Senator. For the record, Brian Miyamoto, behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. Absolutely. And if I may start, we oppose the measure. We support what it's trying to address.

Wild virus, you see us, Chairs, Senators all the time about invasive species, and improving the overall maintenance across the state, of course. Right? We wanna, we wanna reduce the risk, the fuel that comes with you know, unkept properties that also leads to some invasive species. So we support what it's trying to address, just a mechanism of how it is for basically the sticks that are involved. Right?

There's no definition on invasive species, the client's timeline, just the burdens that it may pose on farmers and ranchers. So, yes, to have some incentives, some of the carrots involved to help farmers and ranchers, we all say the farmers and ranchers are are pretty good stewards, and that's why we advocate so much for active agricultural lands.

Not letting one fell or not letting go out of farm production because it is active. There is a level of maintenance that's already done on the farmland. You know, we hear some anecdotal stories.

We don't consider anecdotal about the Lahaina wildfires, but what was going on in the big island in Kohala? The farmers and ranchers. Right? Because it was production land, and they were able to address some of the issues. You hear in Kauai, I think Senate President says all the time, we visited where you had Alum Farms.

And because of the management of the land, right? you could kinda see where that fire stopped. So again, having the farmers and ranchers on the land but having incentives absolutely, Senator. And you know, penalties aren't always bad. We always say, yeah, if there are bad actors, absolutely.

I mean, maybe a stick here and there, but we prefer to see some of the carrots, some of the incentives to help support, you know again, good behavior and really what we do want to see, Farm Bureau and I think others who maybe even can't you know oppose.

But the nature of what this is asking for almost, I mean, we can't see how you can't control what your neighbor does, right? as much as we try. It could be a private land. It could be public land. It could be other things. And so again, the mechanisms in here are are challenging for the Ag sector.

Okay thank you.

Okay. Further questions?

Seeing none thank you. All right. That is the only measure on our agenda.

So I want to go straight into decision making on this. Pursuant to the discussion, Chair having conferred, there are a number of other measures that deal with wildfire and address some of the very things contained in this discussion in this bill. So for the moment, we're going to defer this measure. And with that, that is the end of our 2:15pm agenda.