SB 689 is an appropriations bill aimed at supporting Hawaii’s food security efforts by funding the continued administration of the Hawaii Healthy Food Incentive Program, also known as DA BUX double up food bucks. The bill would provide state general fund money for fiscal years 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 to the Department of Agriculture, which would use the funds to operate the program and provide matching incentives to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants who buy Hawaii-grown fruits and vegetables.
The bill’s findings describe Hawaii’s heavy reliance on imported food, high rates of food insecurity, and the loss of federal SNAP emergency allotments after the COVID-19 pandemic. It emphasizes that the state program leverages federal Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program matching funds to increase access to fresh produce, support local farmers and retailers, and stimulate the local economy. The bill also points to the program’s existing statewide footprint through grocery stores, farmers’ markets, CSA sites, and other food hubs.
Impact
If enacted, SB 689 would appropriate unspecified general revenues to the Department of Agriculture for two fiscal years to sustain the Hawaii Healthy Food Incentive Program and its SNAP produce-match benefits. It would not create a new regulatory scheme, but it would reinforce and expand an existing state-administered incentive program that works alongside federal nutrition funding. The practical effect would be to continue state support for low-income households purchasing local fruits and vegetables, while also channeling more revenue to Hawaii farmers, distributors, and participating food retailers.
Sentiment
The bill is presented in strongly favorable terms, with the findings framing the program as a “triple win” for families, farmers, and the local economy. The discussion in the bill text reflects broad support for maintaining and expanding food incentive funding, especially in light of food insecurity, inflation, and the reduction in federal SNAP emergency benefits. No opposing testimony, committee debate, or recorded votes were provided in the materials, so the available record shows support but no documented opposition.
Contention
The main policy issue is funding level and whether the state should commit general funds to match federal nutrition incentive dollars. Supporters emphasize the program’s health, anti-hunger, and economic benefits, including the ability to draw down federal matching funds and increase purchases of local produce. Potential points of contention, though not reflected in the provided transcripts, would likely include the cost to the state budget, the use of general revenues versus other priorities, and whether the program’s benefits justify the appropriation relative to other food assistance or agricultural programs.
A resolution to direct the Clerk of the House of Representatives to only present to the Governor enrolled House bills finally passed by both houses of the One Hundred Third Legislature.
Relating to nonsubstantive additions to, revisions of, and corrections in enacted codes, to the nonsubstantive codification or disposition of various laws omitted from enacted codes, and to conforming codifications enacted by the 88th Legislature to other Acts of that legislature.