Panel advances bill to clarify transfers of certain non-agricultural park lands after DLNR concerns
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
HB 1323, which would require the Department of Agriculture to accept and manage qualifying non‑agricultural park lands, advanced from committee with amendments after testimony revealing disagreement between DLNR and DOA over transfers and the intent of Act 90.
The House Committee on Agriculture & Food Systems recommended HB 1323 for passage with amendments on Jan. 31, 2025, after testimony from the Department of Land and Natural Resources, the Department of Agriculture, producer groups and other stakeholders.
DLNR witnesses opposed the bill in part because current practice requires both the Board of Land and Natural Resources and the Board of Agriculture to approve transfers; HB 1323 would change that by giving the Department of Agriculture a more unilateral role. DLNR officials said they had worked with DOA and the Board of Agriculture in recent years and that some large pasture lease transfers had been approved recently by the Board of Agriculture; DLNR said it still sought to retain parts of some parcels for reforestation, public access and other public‑use purposes.
Producer groups — including the Hawaii Farm Bureau and Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council — testified in support, saying transfers to DOA would help ranchers secure longer-term, agriculturally focused lease terms and support state goals such as increasing local food production. Testimony from the Cattlemen’s Council said some leases managed by families in active agriculture face possible conversion to conservation if not transferred — outcomes the council warned would reduce beef production.
Committee discussion covered DLNR’s stated reasons for retaining portions of some parcels (reforestation, public access) and the department’s ability to issue grazing permits to retain ranching activity while using areas for restoration and recreation. DLNR said some lessees hold long-term leases (described in testimony as roughly 55 years with options to extend), and DLNR staff said they had proposed partial retentions that some lessees accepted.
At decision making the committee adopted non‑substantive technical edits, deferred the effective date to July 1, 3000 for continued conversation, and moved the bill forward with the committee’s amendments. Votes recorded show members registered reservations in the roll call but the committee advanced the bill so further negotiations and clarifications could continue with the Act 90 working group.