Transcript Highlights:

• I strongly feel that we really need to re-evaluate whether this program has the moral high ground if
• strongly feel that um we really need I strongly feel that um we really need to<00:23:40.200> re-evaluate
• whether<00:23:41.360> this<00:23:41.760> program<00:23:42.159> has to re-evaluate
• whether this program has to re-evaluate whether this program has the<00:23:42.400> moral<00:23

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Housing heard testimony on several housing-related measures. Senate Bill 65 would appropriate funds to the Hawaii Public Housing Authority for rehabilitation and repair of public housing units. Testifiers from the Department of Human Services, HPHA, Catholic Charities Hawaii, and Roar Cares supported the bill, emphasizing that repairing vacant units is a fast, cost-effective way to increase available housing for homeless and elderly residents. HPHA later told the committee it had 139 vacant units, with an estimated average repair cost of about $73,000 per unit. In decision-making, the committee recommended passage of SB 65 with amendments, including an appropriation of $10,147,000, and the motion passed. The committee also considered Senate Bill 40, which would allow HHFDC to secure a line of credit or other indebtedness for the bond volume cap recycling program. HHFDC supported the measure and explained that Act 35 had provided a $150 million line of credit for fiscal year 2025 only, so this bill would extend that authority; HHFDC said the bonds involved would be revenue bonds. Roar Cares supported the bill, while the chair asked whether the Legislature would need to pass such a bill annually. In decision-making, the committee recommended passage with amendments to specify revenue bonds and noted the administration should study other ways to secure the line of credit without annual legislation. For Senate Bill 35, which would create a Housing Efficiency and Innovation subaccount within the rental housing revolving fund and allow fund transfers without legislative approval, HHFDC and several others supported the measure, arguing that more flexible fund movement would improve efficiency. The committee adopted a recommendation to pass SB 35 with amendments, including language prioritizing projects on state or county land or projects by entities required to reinvest surplus into housing, and noting nonprofit developers could qualify for prioritization. Senate Bill 42, which would repeal certain 30% AMI set-aside and preference requirements for rental housing revolving fund projects, drew opposition from Catholic Charities Hawaii, which argued the bill would reduce the supply of the most vulnerable housing units, while HHFDC warned it could reduce production of 30% AMI units. The committee deferred SB 42. The final bill discussed was Senate Bill 75, which would establish a working group to revise the state’s qualified allocation plan and related rental housing revolving fund loan terms and report back to the Legislature. HHFDC and others offered comments, while Catholic Charities asked that the bill be deferred, saying HHFDC already had the capacity to work with the community without a new law. Roar Cares supported the concept but urged broader stakeholder inclusion. In decision-making, the chair said the committee report would note concerns about prior QAP revisions and the need for more transparent, ongoing stakeholder participation, and the committee recommended passage of SB 75 without amendments. All recommendations were adopted, and the hearing adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• ability, listen to the experts and the stakeholders with a variety of perspectives, and carefully evaluate
• The Department of Commerce was charged with publishing a report evaluating existing state AI laws and
• So the Department of Commerce was charged with publishing a report evaluating existing state AI laws
• Tool evaluation becomes even more critical.
• It's being evaluated by our teams. Does it fit with the enterprise strategy? Is it secure?

Summary: The committee held its first meeting on artificial intelligence and data centers, established a quorum, and heard introductory remarks from Majority Leader Hogue and the chair about the committee’s charge. Members said the goal was to build a factual foundation on AI, hear from experts and stakeholders, and develop practical North Dakota-focused recommendations rather than simply produce a large volume of bills. Legislative Council also reviewed interim committee rules and procedures before the informational presentations began. Staff and NCSL presenters then gave overviews of AI concepts and the state and federal policy landscape. The background memo and presentations covered AI categories and terms, state laws in areas such as consumer protection, algorithmic discrimination, deepfakes, chatbots, children’s safety, health, education, and government use, as well as data center siting and economic impacts. NCSL described a growing number of AI bills introduced and enacted across the states, with comprehensive laws in places like Utah, Colorado, Texas, California, and Illinois, and noted recurring issues around transparency, privacy, liability, and protections for minors. A major focus of the discussion was federal preemption and the tension between state regulation and national AI policy. NCSL said a recent White House executive order and related federal framework seek a light-touch, innovation-friendly national standard, with possible challenges to state laws and possible funding conditions tied to compliance, though no broad federal preemption has yet been enacted. Members asked about Commerce Clause concerns, industry pushback, oversight models, and whether AI policy is bipartisan; presenters said the issue cuts across party lines, with broad agreement on child safety and deepfake restrictions but more disagreement on broader regulatory approaches. No votes or formal actions were taken at the meeting, and the committee recessed briefly for technical issues during the second presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• ability, listen to the experts and the stakeholders with a variety of perspectives, and carefully evaluate
• set forth in the order and assigns the Secretary of Commerce the responsibility of publishing and evaluating
• So the Department of Commerce was charged with publishing a report evaluating existing state AI laws
• Tool evaluation becomes even more critical.
• It's being evaluated by our teams. Does it fit with the enterprise strategy? Is it secure?

Summary: The committee held its first meeting on artificial intelligence and data centers, establishing its purpose as a study and policy-development body rather than one aimed at producing many bills. Majority Leader Hogue urged members to move quickly, focus on federal and other states’ AI laws, consider possible federal preemption, child protections, and the siting and economic impacts of data centers. Committee leadership echoed that the goal is practical, balanced governance that protects North Dakota while allowing innovation to continue. Legislative Council staff provided a background memo and NCSL presented a detailed overview of AI concepts and the current state legislative landscape. The presentations distinguished narrow AI, generative AI, agentic AI, and theoretical AGI/ASI, and summarized major state policy themes: comprehensive AI laws in states such as Utah, Colorado, Texas, California, and Illinois; targeted laws on deepfakes, chatbots, health, education, notifications, and digital likeness; and growing use of appropriations and agency inventories. Members asked about Colorado’s repeal and reenactment, Texas’s sandbox and training provisions, oversight structures, and whether AI regulation is bipartisan; presenters said most issues cut across party lines, with broad agreement on child safety and deepfakes but more division on broader regulatory approaches. The federal update focused on executive orders, preemption, and congressional activity. NCSL described a White House framework favoring a single federal standard, a DOJ litigation task force, Commerce Department review of state laws, and possible funding conditions tied to state AI policy, though no formal state-law challenge had yet occurred. The presentation also covered a recent executive order creating a voluntary federal vetting process for advanced frontier models after safety concerns, and congressional proposals including a failed 10-year state moratorium, Senator Blackburn’s child-safety bills, the Kids Online Safety Act, a House-passed children’s digital safety package, a Senate data center moratorium proposal, and a House ratepayer/data-center bill. The committee took no formal action beyond receiving testimony and asking questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• charter applications, conducting ongoing oversight and performance evaluations, making charter approval
• charter applications, conducting ongoing oversight and performance evaluations, making charter approval
• capacity and operations, operations, operations, soliciting<00:48:53.280> and<00:48:53.680> evaluating
• <00:48:54.400> charter soliciting and evaluating charter soliciting and evaluating charter
• , oversight, and performance evaluations, oversight, and performance evaluations, making<00:49:00.559

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• know, in your testimony, you talked about coordinating with farm organizations and then the post-evaluation
• know, in your testimony, you talked about coordinating with farm organizations and then the post-evaluation
• know, in your testimony, you talked about coordinating with farm organizations and then the post-evaluation
• <01:32:17.440> and<01:32:17.679> adopt<01:32:18.560> adapt Tourism to evaluate
• and adopt adapt Tourism to evaluate and adopt adapt enterprise<01:32:20.000> zone<01:32:20.480

Bills: SB2885, SB2174, SB2925, SB2798, SB2320, SB2800, SB1230, SB2706, SB3233, SB2405, SB2350, SB2169, SB3320

Keywords: coconut rhinoceros beetle, invasive species, biosecurity, green waste, environmental management, agriculture, quarantine, pest control, transport regulations, Hawaii Revised Statutes, coconut trees, tax credit, natural management, Hawaii, environment, agricultural enforcement, agricultural theft, farm theft, crop theft, commodity theft

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 2885 SD1, which would create mandatory handling and storage rules for commercial and residential coconut rhinoceros beetle host material beginning in 2027, with penalties and an effective date. Support came from the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, DLNR, Maui County Department of Agriculture, the Hawaii Farm Bureau, Hawaii Farmers Union, and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Testifiers generally said the bill would help reduce CRB spread, though some urged additional science-backed methods, better coordination, and technical or cost-share support for smaller operations. Hawaiian Earth Recycling recommended amendments to align the bill with existing Department of Health/EPA composting rules, add other materials that can harbor CRB, allow future approved treatment methods, and replace the bill’s 60-day turning requirement with existing pathogen-reduction standards. One individual supported the goal but argued the state’s CRB strategy has lacked community and cultural consultation and should include a cultural advisement role. Department witnesses said enforcement would rely on inspection and an educate-before-regulate approach, and they noted the challenge of creating enough drop-off sites, especially in rural areas. The committee then took up SB 2174 SD2, which would authorize the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity to declare an emergency quarantine, halt operations in affected areas for 96 hours with possible extension, quarantine suspected pest areas, issue notices and compensation to affected farmers, and adopt interim transportation rules for materials that may harbor high-impact invasive species. The department and DLNR supported the measure, emphasizing the need for fast action in the first hours of an invasion. Hawaii Farmers Union supported the compensation provisions but asked for stronger communication with producers and a post-action report to the Board of Agriculture after about 90 days to evaluate effectiveness and economic impacts. In response to questions, department staff said the bill would be a short-term, department-only quarantine authority distinct from the governor-declared biosecurity emergency authority enacted previously, and that it could serve as an intermediate step. They also said outreach would need to be done through farm organizations such as Farmers Union, Farm Bureau, and Cattlemen’s groups. The final measure discussed was SB 2925 SD1, relating to coconut trees. The bill would recognize coconut trees as a source of food and water and a cultural treasure, require rules for coconut tree seed banks, require signage identifying landscape palms where applicable, set labeling standards for non-consumable landscape palms, and create an income tax credit for consumable coconut trees maintained through natural management practices. The transcript ended before testimony or action on this bill was completed, and no vote was taken on any of the measures discussed in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• unit mixed-use project as part of your environmental analysis and your project analysis and how you evaluate
• unit mixed-use project as part of your environmental analysis and your project analysis and how you evaluate
• unit mixed-use project as part of your environmental analysis and your project analysis and how you evaluate
• unit mixed-use project as part of your environmental analysis and your project analysis and how you evaluate
• unit mixed-use project as part of your environmental analysis and your project analysis and how you evaluate

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint House committees on Housing and Education heard HB 1713, HD1, which would repeal school impact fees and transfer remaining balances in the school impact fee and certain fair share accounts to the school facilities special fund. The Department of Education testified in opposition, while the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, the Attorney General’s office (with comments and suggested constitutional amendments), the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the School Facilities Authority, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, NAP Hawaii, Avalon Development Company, Mark Development, Maui Chamber of Commerce, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Landis Research Foundation, BIA Hawaii, and others testified in support. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii offered comments. The DOE said the bill would weaken a key tool for matching school facilities to residential growth, while supporters said the current program leaves funds unused or restricted in ways that limit their effectiveness. A lengthy discussion followed about the difference between the older school impact fee program and the separate fair share agreements tied to land use entitlements and change-of-zone approvals. DOE Deputy Superintendent Jesse Suki explained that fair share funds are tied to the district where they were collected, may be too small to build a full school on their own, and are held until needed for projects such as Core Ridge, Central and West Maui, and other planned schools. Committee members pressed DOE on why funds had remained unspent for years, how much money was in the accounts, and whether the department had reviewed audit findings about the program. Members also questioned whether homeowners ultimately bear these costs through developers passing them along. The committee did not take a vote during the portion of the meeting provided. The discussion ended with members and DOE debating whether the current statute should remain in place, whether past entitlements should be affected, and whether the bill should be amended to better address remaining construction-related obligations and the use of collected funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• It also allows us to do evaluations.
• And you would say, well, why does appraisers need to do evaluations?
• c> would<01:20:02.080> say,<01:20:02.239> well, evaluations.
• And you would say, well, evaluations.
• And what's an evaluation? It's something that a bank needs less than a certified appraisal.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The House convened with an invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance, then established a quorum with 96 members present. The chamber excused absent members, suspended rules to allow bill and resolution co-sponsorship and vote modifications, approved the previous day’s journal, and received Senate messages announcing passage of Senate Bills 101, 129, 162, and 170. The clerk then reported second-reading bills and favorable committee reports, which were ordered to first reading and placed on the calendar. The House then took up several bills on third reading. House Bill 521, relating to stalking, was presented as a modernization of Kentucky’s stalking laws and passed 95-0 after debate; a motion to reconsider was tabled. House Bill 220, relating to pension spiking in the Kentucky Public Pensions Authority systems, was amended by House floor amendment 1 to move the effective date back to July 1, 2021 to capture additional employees, then passed 95-0 and the clincher was applied. House Bill 510, relating to organ donation safety, passed 97-0 after explanation that it would require a pause and restart if anyone in the process believed there were indications of life. House Bill 467, relating to real property, passed 96-0 after adoption of a committee substitute; it creates a process for local governments to identify abandoned or underutilized state-owned property and sets procedures for review, notice, and disposal. House Bill 190, relating to licensed child care centers, passed 96-0 after a committee substitute that adjusts square-footage calculations for certain school-aged child care areas and excludes infants and toddlers. House Bill 141, relating to type 1 diabetes, passed 96-0 after a committee substitute removed an annual distribution requirement and instead made informational materials available in school offices; members spoke in support, including one describing a family experience with the disease. House Bill 518, relating to collection of local business taxes and fees, passed 91-3 after a committee substitute that allows electronic filing while preserving local control, creates an advisory committee, and phases in implementation through July 2029. House Bill 497, relating to post-secondary tuition waivers, was explained as addressing waiver costs to universities and was amended with House floor amendment 3 to expand and clarify eligibility, including up to 128 hours for eligible students and additional provisions for certain groups; discussion was underway when the transcript ended. The meeting also included committee reports on bills covering wildlife depredation, light pollution, limited commercial driver’s licenses, prison educational programs, civil rights, respiratory care, dietitians, temporary structures, controlled substances prescribing authority, the Athletic Trainer Compact, children of military families, local boards of education, youth health services, and class sizes for exceptional children and youth.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Bradley continued: “I also have a problem with page 15 where they say evaluators
• There’s no definition of what evaluators are. What are their level of qualifications? Who are they?
• Are they just people that evaluators?
• And during committee we had DOC who came up and they talked about the credentialing for the evaluators
• We don't want to put for the evaluators.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The House convened with a quorum, approved the journal from February 13, 2026, and heard several announcements and introductions, including recognition of student guests and notices about upcoming committee meetings. Members also shared informal remarks tied to Lunar New Year celebrations, a water policy breakfast, and other caucus or committee updates. The chamber then took up special orders for several bills, including House Bill 1013 and House Bill 1064. House Bill 1013, concerning ratio utility billing systems used by landlords to allocate utility charges to tenants, was presented as a technical cleanup to last year’s House Bill 1090. Supporters said it was intended to clarify that such billing practices remain allowable and to align the statute with legislative intent. Amendment L002, offered to state that the bill created no private right of action and to limit litigation, was debated at length but defeated. Opponents argued it would restrict existing rights under consumer protection law, while supporters said it would reduce unnecessary lawsuits. The bill then passed the committee. House Bill 1064, concerning modifications to the youthful offender system, was also heard. Supporters said the bill codifies existing Department of Corrections practices, updates language to promote effective communication, and reflects evidence-informed, trauma-informed rehabilitation aimed at reducing recidivism. Amendment L003, which adjusted language to be more inclusive of the YOS community, was adopted. Several members opposed the bill, arguing it codified practices already in place, lacked clarity on evaluators and costs, and did not sufficiently account for victims’ perspectives. Despite that opposition, the committee report was adopted and the bill advanced with the amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> I know that we offer case-by-case evaluation prior to initiating that permit application.
• the impact on a better job of evaluating the impact on the<00:20:37.200> water<00:20:37.440><
• So it's a point in time, not a real-time evaluation.
• So it's a point in time, not a real-time evaluation.
• >> Evaluation. >> Evaluation. >> Evaluation.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committees heard testimony on five housing-related measures. SB 2232 would create a three-year tiny home grant pilot program within HHFDC, with annual reporting to HHFDC and the Legislature; testimony was mixed, and the bill was later recommended for passage with amendments, including a full-time housing development specialist, a residential-use-only restriction for the tiny homes, and a blanked appropriation. SB 2192 would bar county down-zoning that reduces housing capacity unless equivalent capacity is added elsewhere in the county; it drew support from housing advocates and comments from planning officials, and was also recommended for passage with amendments. SB 2378 would clarify insurance requirements for single- and multifamily projects seeking expedited county permitting; engineers and housing groups supported it, while one testifier opposed it, and it was recommended for passage with a technical amendment. SB 2524 would appropriate funds to the City and County of Honolulu for housing-related departments to comply with prior acts; the Honolulu department supported it, and members asked about prior spending and funding sources. SB 2398 would require residential housing utility availability maps; the Honolulu Board of Water Supply opposed the bill as written, citing infrastructure security, accuracy, liability, and administrative burden concerns, while supporters said it would improve transparency for developers. The chair proposed amendments to make the maps broad and geographic rather than parcel-specific, remove contested-case and reliance provisions, allow disclaimer language, and change the date; the bill was then recommended for passage with amendments, with one member noting reservations. All five measures were ultimately passed out of committee with amendments, with votes recorded and some members excused.

Transcript Highlights:

• defendant's attendance at initial defendant's attendance at initial competency<00:14:08.279> evaluation
• <00:14:09.279> and<00:14:09.600> at<00:14:09.839> any competency evaluation
• and at any competency evaluation and at any treatment<00:14:11.000> appointments.
• ,<00:19:29.440> supporting<00:19:29.840> them competency evaluations, supporting them
• competency evaluations, supporting them with<00:19:30.240> programming,<00:19:31.360> um,<

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• that the House did not hear the bill, is that we have not had an opportunity to fully debate and evaluate
• He asked whether the witness did not have a chance to evaluate the position before, during, or after
• He asked whether the witness did not have a chance to evaluate the position before, during, or after
• So, did you not have a chance to evaluate<00:12:50.720> this<00:12:51.120> position<00:
• 12:51.519> before,<00:12:52.079> during, evaluate this position before, during, evaluate

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are also planning to conduct a survey of turkey hunters this summer to evaluate the impacts on turkey
• that they don't have to go through the process that I was describing earlier, where you get the evaluation
• that they don't have to go through the process that I was describing earlier, where you get the evaluation
• that they don't have to go through the process that I was describing earlier, where you get the evaluation
• that they don't have to go through the process that I was describing earlier, where you get the evaluation

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• lot of excellent people doing a lot of excellent work spending a lot of time going through these evaluations
• 00:03:26.680> through<00:03:27.280> these going through these going through these evaluations
• but what is inherent in that evaluations but what is inherent in that valuation<00:03:32.879> process
• :59.319> counties<00:03:59.920> cities<00:04:00.799> when<00:04:01.120> evaluation
• mainly counties cities when evaluation mainly counties cities when evaluation came<00:04:02.200>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So they would obviously need to work with the PFFA to evaluate...”
• “So they would obviously need to work with the PFFA to evaluate who their active members are and who

Summary: The Senate Committee on Retirement met on May 11, 2026, with a quorum present and approved the minutes from May 5. The committee then took up House Bill 41, which concerns the board membership of the firefighter retirement system. The author explained that the bill had been revised toward a compromise to better represent non-union active members on the retirement board, while preserving legislative representation. Under the concept amendment discussed, the House-appointed legislative seat would be removed, the Senate designee would remain, and a non-union active member would be added in its place. The author and committee also discussed alternating legislative terms, but clarified that the Senate designee would not be removed. Committee members and staff then reviewed how the new non-union seat would be filled, including an election process limited to non-union active members. Firefighters Retirement System counsel and a representative of the Professional Firefighters Association raised concerns about the difficulty and cost of identifying eligible voters because union membership changes frequently. Staff estimated the election could cost roughly $50,000 to $65,000 every five years, with additional administrative work to verify eligibility and send ballots. A senator asked whether a fixed cutoff date could solve the problem, but witnesses said membership changes would still make that difficult. After discussion, the committee identified the amendment as 3541 and moved the bill forward on a favorable motion, with no objection. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• When Bill 1395 comes as a recommendation from the Incentive Evaluation Commission, if you recall, the
• Incentive Evaluation Commission is our watchdog group that reviews the incentives that have been passed

Bills: SB1323, SB1863, SB1932, SB1950, SB1956, SB1970, SB1599, SB1312, SB1776, SB1858, SB1985, SB1302, SB1809, SB1401, SB2053, SB1503, SB1553, SB1427, SB1642, SB1421, SB1837, SB1566, SB1567, SB1794, SB1484, SB1557, SB1564, SB1591, SB1395, SB1456, SB1562, SB1613, SB1983, SB1550, SB2065, SB2152, SB2159, SB2172, SB2110, SB2111, SB2114

Keywords: memorial designation, highway, Sheriff Marty Grisham, transportation, Oklahoma Statutes, memorial highway, road designation, John Skelley, motor carrier, administrative hearing, legal representation, corporate liability, aviation, aircraft, surveillance, regulations, fees, Oklahoma statutes, memorial, highway designation

Transcript Highlights:

• Number four is to evaluate our curriculum and program.
• After an evaluation by Oklahoma Roofing, we've developed a staggered replacement schedule to spread out

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Independent third-party evaluation offers decisive advantages over traditional regulatory models.
• Setting advanced AI safety standards takes deep, current expertise in model evaluation, red teaming,
• These assessments mandate that developers must systematically evaluate. Risk assessments.
• These assessments mandate that developers must systematically evaluate how their platform design impacts
• These assessments mandate that developers must systematically evaluate how their platform design impacts

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• c><00:07:09.480> a<00:07:09.600> review<00:07:10.080> and<00:07:10.200> evaluation
• made based on a review and evaluation made based on a review and evaluation from<00:07:11.200>
• Of course, schools are mandated to provide those special education evaluations, and we have seen eval
• <00:15:47.160> at<00:15:47.440> UK,<00:15:48.280> at screening and evaluations
• at UK, at screening and evaluations at UK, at Norton<00:15:48.840> Children's,<00:15:50.040><

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• one of the ways that accountability goal is achieved is the requirement for an annual review and evaluation
• c> the<00:04:42.160> implementation<00:04:42.720> of<00:04:42.960> the evaluation
• <00:05:04.560> excuse<00:05:04.880> me report which has an evaluation excuse me report
• which has an evaluation excuse me an<00:05:06.000> evaluation<00:05:06.639> summary<00
• summary as well as joint an evaluation summary as well as joint strategies<00:05:08.560> and<

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's consistent with the current measure, where they are evaluating the public trust resources at that
• This working group shall evaluate and make recommendations regarding the governance and structure of
• <02:00:06.400> and<02:00:06.520> make working group shall evaluate and make working
• group shall evaluate and make recommendations<02:00:07.680> regarding<02:00:08.160> the
• Three, evaluate the need for independent counsel and dedicated executive leadership.

Bills: SB3253, SB2401, SB3169, SB17, SB3014, SB3032, SB1432, SB2002, SB2972, SB3247

Keywords: conservation, endangered species, wildlife preservation, native birds, biodiversity, sanctuary, nonprofit, DLNR, agricultural district, land use, chapter 195D, chapter 205, chapter 42F, state funding, public purpose, habitat restoration, predator-free sanctuary, ecosystem restoration, Zealandia, wildlife refuge

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on SB 5253 SD2 relating to conservation and SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation district, with the chair emphasizing short testimony limits and the need to finish before session. On SB 5253, DLNR said it stood on its written testimony and answered questions about the bill’s proposed nonprofit endangered species sanctuary. Members asked whether existing entities or agreements, such as land trusts, private landowners, and DLNR safe harbor agreements, could accomplish similar conservation goals without creating a new entity. DLNR said similar work already exists, but it was not aware of a comparable sanctuary model in the state. A member also questioned language suggesting for-profit businesses in the sanctuary, and DLNR said the intent appeared to be sales of outreach or similar materials, though it agreed that such activities could be handled by a nonprofit. The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2401, which would create a regional shoreline adaptation/mitigation framework. The Department of the Attorney General said it had concerns about inconsistent use of the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation,” warning of possible title-subject issues. DLNR said it was neutral on the terminology and more concerned with the substance, and noted that the bill would not waive permits; any plan would still require environmental review and applicable state and county permits. DLNR also supported OHA’s recommendation to consider impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during regional planning, and said the bill’s language on temporary shoreline protection measures could help address the gap between emergency permits and longer-term planning while avoiding a hardening-only approach. The Office of Planning supported the regional planning concept but noted it is not a regulatory agency and would need to work with DLNR and the Land Board. OHA supported the bill’s planning-based approach but recommended amendments to require assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during plan development and to clarify that environmental review would still apply at the project level. Testifiers from the Ka‘anapali Steering Committee strongly supported the bill, saying it would provide a regional framework for ongoing erosion problems while preserving full regulatory authority and normal permitting, and they proposed amendments to standardize terminology, create a limited pathway for temporary shoreline protection, and address ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Members discussed the meaning of “mitigation” versus “adaptation,” the scope of shoreline hardening, and whether the bill would help the legislature take a broader, more holistic view of shoreline decisions. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.