HB968 establishes a new Healthy Soils Program within the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. The program would require the department to create a statewide soil health assessment, identify Hawaii-specific practices that improve soil health and build soil carbon stocks, provide education and technical assistance to farmers, and set program standards based on the greenhouse gas sequestration task force’s findings. It also authorizes the department to consult with or contract with third parties for expertise in carrying out the program.
The bill further allows the department, subject to available funding, to issue awards and other financial incentives to support farm management practices that contribute to healthy soils. Its long-term goals include setting deadlines for awards to meet program standards, developing plans for state agricultural lands, and creating incentives for small farmers, ranchers, and landowners to take carbon-negative actions. The department must also report annually to the Legislature on the program’s status, progress, and recommendations, including any proposed legislation.
Impact
HB968 would add a new section to Chapter 141, Hawaii Revised Statutes, creating a statutory healthy soils program and directing the Department of Agriculture to administer it. It would also appropriate unspecified general funds for fiscal years 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 to establish the program and provide financial incentives, thereby creating a new state spending obligation tied to agricultural conservation and climate-related soil practices. The bill would affect farmers, ranchers, landowners, and state agricultural leaseholders by expanding access to technical assistance and potential grants or awards for soil health improvements.
Sentiment
The bill appears generally favorable in committee and on the floor, as reflected by its passage on second reading and referral onward. The available record shows no reservations and no committee transcript opposition, suggesting broad support for the concept of promoting soil health, agricultural resilience, and carbon sequestration. However, the recorded vote also shows two representatives voting no, indicating at least some disagreement with the measure or its implementation approach.
Contention
The main points of contention likely concern the bill’s fiscal impact, the open-ended appropriation amount, and the practical standards the Department of Agriculture would have to develop using greenhouse gas sequestration task force findings. Some lawmakers may also have concerns about administrative burden, the use of third-party contractors, and whether the program’s carbon-negative goals and deadlines are sufficiently defined or achievable. The no votes from Representatives Muraoka and Pierick suggest skepticism, while the absence of reservations indicates no recorded compromise language in the available history.