Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 6233 is regarding penalties for the sale of covered animal species.
• In part, this depends on the total market value of the covered species.
• The same thing would go with game species in the state of Washington.
• Game species in Washington are not allowed to be sold, distributed, or traded, and so on.
• He noted that some species mentioned in the briefing may be allowed to be taken under special harvest

Bills: SB5930, SB6075, SB6216, SB6233

Keywords: irrigation districts, director contracts, beneficial interests, transparency, governance, mitigation, habitat conservation, property rights, landowner compensation, fairness in mitigation, critical habitat, species preservation, riparian protection, salmon recovery, watershed planning, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Ecology, habitat conservation account, conservation easement, noxious weed control

Summary: The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee heard several bills. On SB 5930, staff explained that the bill would create a spouse-employment exception to the municipal conflict-of-interest rules for irrigation district directors, allowing a director’s spouse to work for the district if employed before the director’s election, with disclosure and recusal requirements. Senator Gainer said the bill would help rural districts with limited staffing options, and a representative of the Washington State Water Resources Association testified in support. The bill drew 58 pro and one con sign-in, and the public hearing was closed. The committee then heard SB 6075, which would expand use of the Habitat Conservation Account to help landowners facing mitigation requirements from Ecology or Fish and Wildlife when those costs exceed a typical mitigation fee or reduce more than half the financial benefit of the property’s current use. Senator Wagoner described it as relief for landowners dealing with costly mitigation, and the bill had 296 pro and 2 con sign-ins with no oral testimony. The committee also heard SB 6216, a DNR efficiency bill that would replace paper pamphlet and office-posting requirements for timber and land sales with website posting and other practical notice methods; DNR, the Washington Forest Protection Association, and the American Forest Resource Council supported it, and the bill had 60 pro and one con sign-in. Before hearing SB 6233, the committee voted by voice to waive the five-day notice rule. Staff said the bill would increase criminal wildlife penalty assessments for trafficking covered animal species from $2,000 to $4,000 for second-degree offenses and from $4,000 to $8,000 for first-degree offenses, with half of the revenue going to the University of Washington’s Center for Environmental Forensic Science. Senators raised questions about the scope of “trade,” legal harvest in other jurisdictions, and the center’s role. Professor Samuel Wasser testified remotely in support, describing the center’s wildlife forensic work and its use in combating illegal wildlife trade. The hearing closed with six pro and 62 con sign-ins, and the committee concluded its business for the day.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> we are concerned about these species. we are concerned about these species.
• Invasive Species Council and its Invasive Species Council and its continued<01:36:36.560><c> work.
• </c> coordinating group on alien pest species coordinating group on alien pest species to<01:43:37.600
• So we want to sale of specific species.
• </c><02:03:46.480><c> Uh</c> Invasive Species Council. Uh Invasive Species Council.

Bills: SB2606, SB3253, SB237, SB3252, SB1178, SB2322, SB2019, SB3043, SB3014, SB2972, SB1190, SB2488

Keywords: wildlife sanctuary, environmental conservation, Hawaii, nonprofit corporation, freshwater preservation, community stewardship, biodiversity, ecological heritage, conservation, endangered species, wildlife preservation, native birds, sanctuary, nonprofit, DLNR, agricultural district, land use, chapter 195D, chapter 205, chapter 42F

Summary: The committees heard testimony on several measures related to wildlife, conservation, shoreline adaptation, and climate governance. On SB 2606, which would establish the Freshwater State Recreational Area Wildlife Sanctuary Corporation, the Department of Land and Natural Resources said it had concerns about employee eligibility and was not yet prepared to comment further on the bill’s ramifications. After testimony ended, a senator asked DLNR to follow up with more detail, and the department said it would relay the questions to leadership and respond later. No vote was taken on the measure during the excerpt. On SB 3253, which would create the Hawaii Conservation Sanctuary as a nonprofit entity to work with DLNR, the department said it supported the bill. In discussion, DLNR said Hawaii has not done anything like this before, described a similar model in New Zealand, and estimated that developing such a sanctuary could cost millions of dollars. Members also discussed whether the concept would fit with existing efforts such as Hakalau, and DLNR said the bill could apply to private or state lands depending on the site. No action was taken. The most extensive discussion was on SB 237, which would expand state and county authority to develop adaptation pathways for relocating infrastructure away from sea level rise and coastal flooding areas. DLNR supported the bill, saying it prioritizes public trust resources over economic development or private property. The Kahana Bay Steering Committee and the Shoreline Preservation Coalition opposed the measure, arguing it was too focused on managed retreat and should include a broader range of shoreline responses, such as erosion mitigation, groins, sand nourishment, and other interim protections. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development said it appreciated the bill’s intent but wanted broader language that would allow more tools in the toolbox. Members debated whether retreat is inevitable, whether different shorelines require different approaches, and whether the bill should be more flexible. No vote was taken. The final measure discussed was SB 3252, which would amend the powers and duties of the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, create a coordinator position, and appropriate funds. The commission’s coordinator testified in support, while OPSD opposed the bill, saying it would remove the two cabinet-level co-chair positions, raise accountability concerns, and duplicate some of OPSD’s functions. In questioning, members debated whether the current commission structure has been effective, who would appoint or confirm the coordinator, and whether the bill would improve transparency and implementation. OPSD said it supported more statewide interdepartmental funding for climate planning and staffing, but had concerns about the proposed governance changes. No vote or final action was taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 6233 is regarding penalties for covered animal species.
• Criminal wildlife penalty assessments for violations of trade of covered species are increased in the
• Criminal wildlife penalty assessments for violations of trade of covered species are increased in the
• them in order to support the important work that's being done around stewardship of these endangered species
• really understand the intent that the penalties for willfully violating our laws against endangered species

Bills: SB5816, SB5838, SB5930, SB5960, SB5971, SB6075, SB6097, SB6104, SB6216, SB6233, SB6318, SJM8015

Keywords: juice grapes, agriculture, commerce, state regulation, market access, tribal representation, natural resources, board of natural resources, environmental policy, community involvement, irrigation districts, director contracts, beneficial interests, transparency, governance, ungulate populations, wildlife management, habitat restoration, conservation, sustainability

Summary: The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee heard staff reports on a series of bills covering agricultural marketing, tribal representation on the Board of Natural Resources, irrigation district ethics, ungulate population management, a green fertilizer incentive program, agricultural mitigation and impact statements, conservation futures participation by tribes, timber sale efficiencies, wildlife penalty assessments, shellfish fees, and a joint memorial on federal wildfire response. Staff outlined fiscal notes and several proposed substitutes or amendments, including changes to tribal board representation, limits on the green fertilizer program, and revisions to the agriculture protection bill. During executive session, the committee adopted a proposed substitute for SB 5838 after rejecting amendments that would have required tribal board members to have forest-management experience or would have alternated representation between eastern and western Washington. The committee also adopted substitutes for SB 5971 and SB 6097, and advanced SB 5816, 5971, 6097, 6216, 6233, 6318, and SJM 8015. SB 5930, SB 5960, SB 6075, and SB 6104 were taken no action on. SB 6233 drew discussion about possible unintended consequences and the need for clearer definitions, while SB 6318 was supported as a way to avoid fees that could harm shellfish growers. Several members explained their votes, particularly on SB 5838, where concerns were raised about conflicts of interest and the need for relevant forestry expertise on the Board of Natural Resources. On SB 6233, supporters said the bill updated penalty amounts tied to endangered species enforcement, while opponents wanted more specificity. The committee concluded that all listed executive-session items had been either moved forward or dropped, and the meeting adjourned after the board signing process.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:23:14.280><c> And</c> endangered species sanctuary. And endangered species sanctuary.
• </c><00:23:36.240><c> management</c> are doing endangered species management are doing endangered species
• Next up we have Shoreline Preservation<00:32:59.360><c> Coalition.</c> Preservation Coalition.
• </c><00:33:54.040><c> full</c> um say that the bill does preserve full um say that the bill does preserve
• </c> historic preservation historic preservation sections<01:03:55.440><c> when</c><01:03:55.560><c>

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• Took it to the Waimea Preserve to make sure we took care of it.
• c><00:46:32.760><c> to</c><00:46:32.840><c> the</c><00:46:32.920><c> Waimea</c><00:46:33.160><c> Preserve
• </c><00:46:33.680><c> to</c><00:46:33.760><c> make</c> Took it to the Waimea Preserve to make Took it
• to the Waimea Preserve to make sure<00:46:34.000><c> we</c><00:46:34.040><c> took</c><00:46:34.160><

Bills: SCR21, SCR75, SCR50, SCR149, SCR47, SCR163, SCR169, SCR170

Keywords: healthcare, rural clinic, feasibility study, access to care, community health, Volcano community, Hawaiʻi Health Systems Corporation, emergency services, health assessment, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, health care, interdepartmental collaboration, public awareness, support services, education, health insurance, affordable healthcare, working group, Hawaii Health Plan, Medicaid expansion

Bills: SCR21, SCR75, SCR50, SCR149, SCR47, SCR163, SCR169, SCR170

Keywords: healthcare, rural clinic, feasibility study, access to care, community health, Volcano community, Hawaiʻi Health Systems Corporation, emergency services, health assessment, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, health care, interdepartmental collaboration, public awareness, support services, education, health insurance, affordable healthcare, working group, Hawaii Health Plan, Medicaid expansion

Transcript Highlights:

• situation deemed by the state or county to be an emergency requiring immediate action for the preservation

Bills: HB644, HB1802, HB1569, HB1619, HB1620, HB1730, HB1749

Keywords: PFAS, single-use plastics, environmental health, food ware, pollution reduction, HB1802, conservation banking, conservation bank, mitigation banking, compensatory mitigation, incidental take permit, incidental take license, habitat conservation plan, HCP, DLNR, BLNR, Board of Land and Natural Resources, endangered species recovery committee, threatened species, endangered species

Summary: The committee heard several environmental and energy bills, beginning with HB 644 on single-use plastics. DLNR and DOH supported the measure, and environmental advocates said it would reduce plastic waste in oceans and landfills. Testifiers urged the bill to avoid weakening existing county ordinances, and some supported delaying implementation to use up inventory, while Upstream opposed compostable-plastic exemptions and urged prompt passage. Committee members asked whether reusable and refillable foodware could be added to the PFAS prohibition, and Upstream said that would be consistent with the bill’s goals. The committee then took up HB 1802 on conservation mitigation banks, HB 1569 on microfiber filters for newly manufactured washing machines, and HB 1619 on electric vehicle infrastructure. HB 1802 drew mostly agency testimony from DLNR, with opposition testimony noted from environmental groups, and members discussed whether suggested amendments would address concerns. HB 1569 received limited testimony, with support from the Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition and opposition from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. HB 1619 was supported by the PUC, Hawaiian Electric, the Department of Transportation, and several advocacy groups; Earthjustice said the bill was needed to address a widening EV charging shortfall and described the funding increase as relatively small compared with the benefits. The committee also heard HB 1620, which would increase the barrel tax to fund the EV charging rebate program. The State Energy Office and PUC offered comments, while the Tax Foundation of Hawaii opposed the special-fund approach and said the bill should also address the non-petroleum fossil-fuel portion of the barrel tax. Earthjustice and youth transportation advocates supported the measure, and the chair asked for information on unused hydrogen fueling subaccount funds; PUC said no hydrogen program funds had been deployed and estimated the balance was likely around $2 million, with exact figures to be provided later. Finally, the committee heard HB 1730 on wastewater systems, which would create a wastewater technical advisory group and fund positions at DOH. DLNR, DOH, OPSD, UH, and several environmental groups supported the bill, emphasizing cesspool pollution, affordability, and the need for more staffing and technical assistance. Testifiers suggested amendments to create a separate cesspool conversion implementation working group and debated the size and composition of the advisory group, including whether to include outside engineers and whether SHIP should be on the panel. No votes were taken during the hearing segment provided.

Bills: HB1601, HB1616, HB1603, HB1604, HB1605, HB1606, HB1802, HB1569, HB1619, HB1730, HB1749, HB644, HB1620

Keywords: biosecurity, invasive species, Hawaii Invasive Species Council, Department of Land and Natural Resources, appropriation, agriculture, aquaculture, commercial activity, swine production, Korean natural farming, land leases, Hawaii, extension, Department of Agriculture, housing, workforce, land use, zoning, public-private partnerships, tax credit

Bills: SCR184, SCR169, SCR47, SCR57, SCR170, SCR163, SCR189

Keywords: SCR184, Senate Concurrent Resolution 184, Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, HCRC, civil rights, anti-discrimination, algorithmic decision making, automated decision making, artificial intelligence, AI bias, machine learning, employment screening, tenant screening, housing discrimination, credit decisions, lending discrimination, public benefits eligibility, state services, equal opportunity, algorithmic discrimination

Summary: The committee met in Room 430 on April 17 at 8:30 a.m. and heard several resolutions focused on Hawaii’s sister-state and international relationships. Measures discussed included SCR 184, SCR 169 SD1, SCR 47, SCR 57 SD1, SCR 170 SD1, and SCR 163 SD1. Testimony generally supported expanding or formalizing ties with Japanese prefectures and other partners, including Yamaguchi, Okayama, and Aotearoa/New Zealand, as well as maintaining the Hawaii-Taiwan relationship. DBED’s Dennis Ling explained that sister-state agreements provide a framework for broader government, nonprofit, and private-sector relationships, and cited existing exchanges in transportation, health, education, culinary rice development, biosecurity, and food innovation. Catherine Stanway of the Division of Forestry and Wildlife supported the Aotearoa measure for predator control, biosecurity, and conservation cooperation. Jerry Chang of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office testified in support of the Taiwan resolution, noting 33 years of sister-state ties and ongoing cooperation in education, culture, economy, and disaster management. One witness raised a concern about language in SCR 57 SD1 related to double taxation, saying that portion did not relate to the sister-state relationship, but the committee chose not to amend the measure to avoid possible delay or conference issues. A committee member also asked about how sister-state relationships work and whether other states have similar country-level arrangements; Ling said Hawaii has an MOU with Israel and mentioned Singapore as another possible partner, while noting that such arrangements often depend on the governor and are not standardized across states. After testimony, the committee voted to recommend passage of all measures as is. SCR 184, SCR 169 SD1, SCR 47, SCR 57 SD1, SCR 170 SD1, and SCR 163 SD1 were all adopted by the committee without amendments. Some members were excused during the hearing, and the meeting adjourned after the final vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Such method shall account for reducing potential risk in transporting invasive species in organic waste
• potential risk and transporting reducing potential risk and transporting invasive<02:02:49.840><c> species
• </c><02:02:51.679><c> We</c> invasive species in organic waste.
• We invasive species in organic waste.

Bills: SB3253, SB3154, SB3254

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 Energy and Environmental Protection heard a long series of resolutions focused largely on waste reduction, energy planning, and environmental protection. Early measures included HR 12/HCR 10 on a permanent landfill host benefits program for Honolulu, HCR 148/HCR 157 on a demolition waste reduction working group, and HR 184/HCR 194 on a mattress stewardship program working group. Testimony on these waste-related measures was generally supportive from environmental groups and some individuals, while the Department of Health supported the mattress stewardship proposal. The Department of Health also commented that a proposed study on recyclable/biodegradable/compostable labeling was very broad and would require additional resources to carry out effectively. The committee then took up several energy-related resolutions. HR 192/HCR 202 would create a task force on Hawaii’s future energy pathways, and HR 194/HCR 204 would ask the Public Utilities Commission to conduct a comprehensive analysis of cost reductions and financial risk. The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Hawaii State Energy Office, and the PUC offered support or comments on these measures, with environmental and industry groups also submitting testimony. Members questioned the Energy Office and PUC at length about errors in prior analyses, competitive bidding, and whether utility proposals could proceed through waiver processes; the PUC said any proposal would still be reviewed and that it generally prefers competitive bidding, while the Energy Office said some issues were being characterized differently and would follow up on waiver standards. Additional measures addressed data centers, liquefied natural gas, and utility oversight. HR 196/HCR 206 would convene a working group on the impacts of large data centers, and HR 197/HCR 207 would require conditions before the PUC approves LNG-related costs; testimony on LNG was split, with supporters urging caution and opponents arguing LNG should not be pursued. HR 193/HCR 2003 sought a written status update on implementation of the Hawaii Electric Reliability Administrator, and HR 191/HCR 201 and HR 33/HCR 33 dealt with sewage and wastewater issues, both drawing support from environmental and community groups. The committee also heard strong support for HR 141/HCR 149 on Red Hill remediation meetings and HR 190/HCR 200 on reassessing military PFAS cleanup decisions; the Board of Water Supply testified in support and described ongoing PFAS testing and concerns beyond Red Hill. The transcript ends as the committee moved into decision-making, with the chair indicating a recommendation to pass HR 12/HCR 10.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> maintain control of any invasive species maintain control of any invasive species on<00:01:27.200
• So reading uh we're in pest species.
• Um while we primarily work species is.
• </c><00:04:32.080><c> and</c> help control these invasive species and help control these invasive species
• Um we do share some invasive species.

Bills: SB2489, SB2310, SB2372, SB2426, SB2334, SB2925, SB3323

Keywords: invasive species, agriculture, biosecurity, lease provisions, environment, natural resources, flood management, vegetation removal, Kainahola stream, Hawaii legislation, trees, exceptional trees, significant trees, urban forestry, arborist advisory committee, DLNR, Department of Land and Natural Resources, University of Hawaii, county planning, tree preservation

Summary: The committee heard several measures related to agriculture, invasive species control, trees, reef protection, and land use. SP 2489 would require Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity leases to include access, invasive-species control, and termination provisions; DAB and DLNR supported it, as did several outside groups, while the Hawaii Farm Bureau and Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council raised concerns about notice, cooperation with lessees, and placing penalties on leaseholders for preexisting infestations. The chair noted six testifiers in support, one opposed, and three with comments. SP 2310 would appropriate funds to remove overgrown vegetation from the Kohola stream. DAB supported the bill but explained that the work already completed by its contractor stopped at a DOT boundary, and that the affected parcel appears to be a DOT highway segment on ceded lands; the committee discussed whether the appropriation should instead go to DOT. SP 2372, on exceptional and significant trees, received support from DNR and Outdoor Circle, with testimony describing trees as critical infrastructure and suggesting technical amendments to committee membership and the process for recommending trees to county councils. SP 2426, which would authorize DNR to contract with private parties to maintain sunscreen dispensers at state beaches and promote mineral-based sunscreen as reef-protective, drew support from DNR and reef advocates, while another witness questioned the science behind claims about mineral versus chemical sunscreens and urged broader environmental solutions. SP 2334 would impose a land conversion fee on agricultural land converted to other uses, create a fee fund for programs including healthy soils, and require state agricultural lands to use a conservation metric. DAB offered comments, and testimony from climate and farm groups generally supported the conservation goals but questioned references to programs not yet in place and objected to language excluding solar and wind uses, with one witness urging that agri-voltaics remain allowed. SP 2925, concerning coconut trees, would recognize them as food, water, and cultural resources, require signage for landscape palms, set labeling standards, and create a tax credit for naturally managed consumable coconut trees. DAB shifted from opposition to comments, DNR supported, and testimony from cultural and subsistence advocates strongly backed the bill as a response to coconut rhinoceros beetle impacts; committee questions focused on enforcement of signage, inspection resources, and the proposed tax credit.

Transcript Highlights:

• Third, the current treatment of farm buildings is preserved while we work out the broader ag assessment
• for each county to maintain a farmland preservation advisory board.
• for each county to maintain a farmland preservation advisory board.
• The county farmland preservation advisory boards were originally designed when the ag land preservation
• They are very proud of their 80,000 acres that they have preserved, and they deserve to be proud.

Bills: HB371

Keywords: HB371, Delaware Agricultural Lands Preservation Act, farmland preservation, agricultural lands, agricultural preservation district, Farmland Preservation Advisory Board, county advisory board, Delaware Foundation, Department of Agriculture, DNREC, planning and zoning, growth zone, open space, land use, farmland protection, rural land preservation, agribusiness, active farmers

Summary: The Senate Executive Committee met in hybrid format, approved the minutes from its June 17 and June 18 meetings, and considered several nominations and bills. The committee heard testimony from Michael T. Skeuse for the Delaware Thoroughbred Racing Commission and Jay Eric Fearwald for the University of Delaware Board of Trustees; both nominees described their backgrounds and qualifications, and no objections were raised. The committee then moved to legislation focused largely on property tax reassessment and related school-tax issues, along with a technical constitutional corrections bill, an agricultural lands preservation cleanup bill, and a child-safety/service-letter bill. A major portion of the meeting centered on Senate Bill 350, which would create a third multifamily residential tax classification at 1.2 times the residential rate. Supporters argued apartments are housing and should not be taxed as commercial property, emphasizing relief for renters and fairness after reassessment. Opponents, including county and school officials, warned the bill would reduce local revenues, complicate tax administration, and create unintended consequences for counties, municipalities, school districts, and agriculture. Similar themes carried into House Bill 462, which would make the split-rate school tax structure permanent and lower the nonresidential cap to 1.85, and House Bill 463, which would align New Castle County senior school-tax exemptions with county exemption rules; both bills drew discussion about shifting burdens, fiscal impacts, and timing. The committee also heard House Substitute 1 for House Bill 320, a technical corrections bill to the Delaware Constitution, with one public commenter objecting to charter-related changes being included in a correction bill. House Bill 371, which removes the requirement for county farmland preservation advisory boards under the Delaware Agricultural Lands Preservation Act, was presented as a streamlining measure and had support from the Department of Agriculture and public comment in favor. House Bill 438, expanding service-letter requirements to a broader set of child-serving facilities and requiring reporting when employers fail to respond, was described as a cleanup bill closing a safety loophole. After public comment and committee discussion, the meeting ended with a motion and unanimous adjournment; no recorded votes on the bills were taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• When the Agland Preservation Act was started in this state, there was a need for the county to have an
• So, working with the Department of Ag and the attorney for the Agland Preservation Board, it's really
• I was wondering, what did the farmland preservation advisory board do? And did they help at all?
• think these boards were created as a way to really give the counties input on how the Aglands Preservation
• think these boards were created as a way to really give the counties input on how the Aglands Preservation

Bills: SB311, HB371

Keywords: pesticide, licensing, agriculture, landscaper, grain inspector, record keeping, Delaware agriculture, certified applicators, regulatory compliance, HB371, Delaware Agricultural Lands Preservation Act, farmland preservation, agricultural lands, agricultural preservation district, Farmland Preservation Advisory Board, county advisory board, Delaware Foundation, Department of Agriculture, DNREC, planning and zoning

Summary: The House Agriculture Committee met with a quorum present and considered three bills. Senate Bill 53 would codify and continue the Farm to Community Program if federal support is reduced or unavailable, prioritize Delaware farmers, and require reporting and transparency. Testimony in support came from the Delaware Farm Bureau, the Academy of Medicine and Public Health, and Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Jimmy Crone, who said the department supports the bill. Members raised no questions, and the committee voted to release the bill by roll call. The committee then heard Senate Bill 311, a Department of Agriculture maintenance bill updating Title 3 provisions related to plant industry and pesticides. The bill removes an outdated $100 license fee, requires certified private applicators to keep pesticide application records available for inspection, expands the definition of landscaper to include commercial entities installing their own nursery stock, and removes a good-character requirement for grain inspector applicants. With no public comment or questions, the committee voted to release the bill by roll call. Finally, House Bill 371, sponsored by Representative Vanderwyn, would streamline the Agland Preservation Act by eliminating a redundant county advisory board step for farmland preservation districts. Representative Vanderwyn and Deputy Secretary Crone explained that the advisory boards were more useful when the program was new, but now the county planning and zoning commissions and the Department of Agriculture already provide the needed review. After brief discussion, with no public comment, the committee voted to release the bill by roll call and then adjourned.

Bills: SF0052

Keywords: wildlife management, environmental restoration, funding, invasive species, aquatic ecosystems, native fish, habitat conservation, 916, all

Bills: SF0052

Keywords: wildlife management, environmental restoration, funding, invasive species, aquatic ecosystems, native fish, habitat conservation, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Specifically for those endangered species.
• Care because of the species that are there.
• That are needed and to help these species from making it onto the federal endangered species list.
• We are preserving these aquatic species.
• We are preserving these aquatic species so they do not become extinct.

Bills: SB47, SB195, SB196, SB197, SB198, SB78

Keywords: food recovery, composting, waste management, solid waste surcharge, organic waste reduction, environment, grants, advisory group, soil conservation, water resources, training services, outreach programs, environmental protection, animal care, veterinary services, spay and neuter, Las Vegas, community funding, animal welfare, animal shelter

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 47, a composting/organic waste measure that had been brought back from the table. The sponsor and witnesses described amendments that reduced the solid waste surcharge, added flexibility for landfills to divert organic waste to regional compost facilities, and delayed the effective date to July 1, 2027. Supporters said the changes made the bill more affordable and workable, while opponents from the waste industry still objected to the surcharge and wanted the proposed study completed before any tax was imposed. After committee discussion, a motion to table resulted in a tie vote, so the bill remained on the table. The committee then heard Senate Bill 195, which appropriates $1 million for training elected officials and staff of soil and water conservation districts. The sponsor and the New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts said the money would support compliance training, procurement and audit requirements, board education, and outreach for the state’s 47 districts. Support came from district officials and environmental advocates, who cited increasing responsibilities tied to disasters and climate impacts. The bill passed unanimously. Next, the committee considered Senate Bill 196 and Senate Bill 197, companion appropriations for animal care and spay/neuter services in Las Vegas and Raton. Senators questioned whether the bills mixed operating funds with capital improvements, whether the projects duplicated statewide spay/neuter grants, and how much local funding was involved. The sponsor said the local communities had substantial skin in the game and that the appropriations were needed for facility expansion and repairs. Both bills passed on 6-2 votes. Finally, the committee began hearing Senate Bill 198, which would fund an endangered species hatchery and rearing station in Las Vegas. The sponsor argued the project would help restore aquatic species and use available state land and water, while supporters said it would strengthen conservation efforts. Opponents argued New Mexico already has a hatchery doing similar work, raised concerns about nuclear and water issues, and questioned the location and policy direction. After extensive testimony, the committee did not finish the bill and recessed SB 78, a separate measure to allow nuclear energy to count toward renewable portfolio standards, for continued discussion on Tuesday.

Transcript Highlights:

• So next we have Shoreline Preservation Coalition in support.
• So next we have Shoreline Preservation Coalition in support.
• </c> So next we have Shoreline Preservation So next we have Shoreline Preservation Coalition<00:19:35.840
• Uh, we need to preserve that beach.
• Um, I did note the endangered species.

Bills: HB1846, HB2205, HB1802, HB1571, HB2047, HB2434, HB2426, HB2361, HB2395, HB1712, HB2544, HB1619

Keywords: coastal erosion, shoreline properties, regional planning, mitigation districts, sediment management, environmental impact, public access, community financing, shoreline erosion, emergency permits, coastal management, erosion control, Hawaii Revised Statutes, HB1802, conservation banking, conservation bank, mitigation banking, compensatory mitigation, incidental take permit, incidental take license

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1846, relating to shoreline mitigation districts. DLNR and the Office of Planning opposed the bill, arguing it would improperly shift regulatory roles between the agencies and prioritize private land interests over public trust and natural and historic resources. Supporters, including the Shoreline Preservation Coalition, Kahana Bay residents, and Hawaii Realtors, said regional planning is needed to address severe erosion, especially in Kahana, and that better coordination between state and county agencies could help move stalled projects forward. Testifiers emphasized that shoreline conditions vary by area and that science-based, region-specific solutions are needed. Members asked questions about whether existing law already allows regional planning and emergency shoreline responses. DLNR said it already has authority to process regional projects and cited an existing draft EIS for Kahana Bay that would proceed through normal permitting and public hearing channels. Supporters responded that the bill would provide a clearer regional planning framework and help communities facing urgent erosion impacts. No vote was taken on HB 1846 in the portion provided. The committee then took up HB 2205, relating to emergency erosion mitigation. DLNR opposed the bill, saying it already has authority to issue emergency permits and had recently done so quickly for a collapsed sidewalk at Queen Surf Beach, and warning that the bill’s language could weaken Act 16 by changing a prohibition on shoreline hardening to a requirement to merely minimize it. Kahana Bay representatives and other supporters argued the bill would create a limited, regulated short-term pathway for emergency shoreline solutions while long-term plans are developed, and said current permits have expired or stalled, leaving dangerous sandbags and no practical relief. Additional testimony from a private homeowner stressed that erosion is threatening homes and that private owners are often bearing the cost of protecting public shoreline access. The discussion remained focused on balancing emergency protection, public access, and long-term shoreline management, and no final action was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The purpose of this would be in your... ...specifically for those endangered species.
• from... ...that are needed and to help these species from making it onto the federal endangered species
• ..species restoration can be borne out of, shall I say, the ashes of that disaster.
• We are preserving these aquatic species so they do not become extinct.
• Down in my area in Dexter, we are preserving these aquatic species so they do not become extinct.

Bills: SB47, SB195, SB196, SB197, SB198, SB78

Keywords: food recovery, composting, waste management, solid waste surcharge, organic waste reduction, environment, grants, advisory group, soil conservation, water resources, training services, outreach programs, environmental protection, animal care, veterinary services, spay and neuter, Las Vegas, community funding, animal welfare, animal shelter

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:10:05.839><c> Council</c> that the Hawaii Invasive Species Council that the Hawaii Invasive Species
• </c> important research for invasive species important research for invasive species management<00:11
• Thank you, to control invasive species.
• Invasive species not only threaten our critically endangered and endemic species, but also our ecosystem
• Invasive species not only threaten our Invasive species not only threaten our critically<00:12:15.680

Bills: HB1601, HB1828, HB1616, HB1603, HB1606, HB1604, HB1605

Keywords: biosecurity, invasive species, Hawaii Invasive Species Council, Department of Land and Natural Resources, appropriation, agriculture, land use, farm dwelling, renewable energy, income qualification, solar energy, geothermal resources, hydropower, agricultural tourism, aquaculture, commercial activity, swine production, Korean natural farming, land leases, Hawaii

Transcript Highlights:

• and over 40 mammal species.
• They would be forced to kill RSD species if injured.
• Veterinarians are not permitted to treat rabies vector species.
• It depends on the species, sir.
• Rabies vector species are not among those.

Bills: HB448, HB448

Keywords: wildlife rehabilitation, conservation, good samaritan, injured animals, orphaned animals, debilitated wildlife, wild birds, wild animals, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, DCNR, permit exemption, animal rescue, animal welfare, veterinary medicine, veterinary licensing, animal cruelty, wildlife care, rehabilitation act, non-federally protected species, endangered species