Written and oral testimony is critical to ensure passage in the House, and to request to reverse an amendment made in the last hearing limiting the ban to Hawai‘i Island.

Submit Testimony by Sunday, March 1, at 10:00 a.m.

Testimony received after the deadline will be accepted but considered late. Those who wish to testify via videoconference must also submit written testimony

Summary of HB2101_HD1 (Relating to Commercial Aquarium Collection):

• HB2101 HD1 bans collection of Hawai‘i’s marine life for sale as aquarium pets.
• HB2101 HD1 explicitly preserves collection for:
  • Traditional and customary practices;
  • Scientific research and education, such as the Waikīkī Aquarium;
  • Aquaculture and captive-breeding programs, including fishponds; and
  • Personal use, such as bait.
• In the last hearing before the Energy & Environmental Protection and Water and Land committees, the ban was amended to be limited to Hawai‘i Island, rather than reaching statewide.

WHY THIS BILL IS CRITICAL:

• Commercial aquarium collection is geographically targeted and has highly localized impacts on reefs and communities where extraction is focused. Limiting the ban to Hawaiʻi Island leaves the nearshore ecosystems of other islands vulnerable.
• Communities—and particularly Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners—have called for an end to the industry to protect nearshore ecosystems.
• In 2017, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court halted collection under the Hawai‘i Environmental Policy Act (HEPA), meaning that collectors have not legally engaged in the practice for nearly a decade.
• Now the Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) is proposing rules to reopen West Hawai‘i to the seven businesses who completed the HEPA process.
• Under the quota system established by DAR to support this proposal, collection is essentially closed to new participants and will require intensive DOCARE resources to enforce and police.
• There are Native Hawaiian communities across the pae ʻāina waiting for DAR’s support to co-manage their marine resources and address other urgent threats.
• Banning aquarium collection statewide not only protects the nearshore resources of all islands and Native Hawaiian communities but also enables DAR to focus its attention where it is critically needed.

Use these samples to submit your own personalized testimony:

SAMPLE TESTIMONY 1

Aloha e Chair Todd, Vice Chair Takenouchi, and Members of the House Committee on Finance:

I strongly support HB2101 HD1 which would establish a ban on the collection of reef resources for commercial aquarium sale and ensure that West Hawai‘i and other areas targeted by the industry remain closed as they have been for the past 10 years. I also request that this ban be extended statewide for the following reasons:

Protecting Targeted Communities
Commercial aquarium collection removes vital species from our reef ecosystems for commercial sale and captivity. Historically, commercial aquarium collectors have focused their efforts on specific geographic areas—with measurable negative effects on the density of fish and other species in these areas. Species targeted for collection include culturally valuable fish such as lauʻī pala (Yellow Tang) and umaumalei (Clown Tang). Practitioners have observed a decline in abundance of these species over the years.

Ensuring Reef Health
Meanwhile, healthy and vibrant coral reefs generate more than $1.2 billion annually in tourism revenue and provide critical ecosystem services, including shoreline protection and food security. A statutory ban on commercial aquarium collection protects this economic engine and foundation of resilience, and preserves Hawaiʻi’s marine resources for future generations by ensuring species that support reef health stay on the reef.

Reducing Regulatory Costs
A clear prohibition would also simplify enforcement and reduce the cost of this industry to the state. To support its recent conclusion that commercial aquarium extraction in West Hawai‘i is sustainable, the Division of Aquatic Resources created a quota-based permit system which essentially closes the industry to all but the seven businesses who participated in the environmental review process. A quota-based permit system closes economic pathways to industry newcomers and requires intense policing that takes away from other vital duties of our DOCARE officers. This means that resources that could be directed elsewhere will be used to supervise a small number of industry participants.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committees to pass HB2101 H1, with an amendment to restore the ban statewide, as originally drafted.

Mahalo for the opportunity to testify,
[Your Name] [City / Island] [Optional: Organization]

Sample Testimony 2:

Aloha e Chair Todd, Vice Chair Takenouchi, and Members of the House Committee on Finance:

I strongly support HB2101 HD1 which would establish a ban on the collection of reef resources for commercial aquarium sale and ensure that West Hawai‘i and other areas targeted by the industry remain closed as they have been for the past 10 years. I also request that this ban be extended statewide for the following reasons.

Commercial aquarium fishing flies in the face of Hawaiʻi’s constitutional public trust doctrine, which requires that our natural and cultural resources be used and conserved for the public good, rather than private gain. The aquarium collection industry has extracted and exported millions of specimens of public trust marine life for commercial sale, the vast majority of which reportedly die during, or within a year after, collection.

At the same time, this commercial activity has diminished the ecological and cultural integrity of our reef systems, undermined the state’s food security and climate resilience, and degraded a cornerstone of our tourism-based economy. Not surprisingly, the majority of Hawaiʻi residents, and Native Hawaiian subsistence communities in particular, support a total ban on commercial aquarium collection.

While commercial aquarium collection has not been allowed for the better part of a decade, the Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) has recently proposed rules that would reopen West Hawai‘i waters to commercial aquarium collection, claiming that they are mandated to do so under state law. Yet as DAR has recognized, agency rulemaking regulates how an activity operates, not whether the activity should be allowed. Accordingly, the legislature has the authority—and responsibility—to decide whether this activity should be permitted at all.

Healthy coral reefs support food security, cultural and subsistence practices, and shoreline protection. Moreover, on-reef tourism activities that are dependent on vibrant and healthy ecosystems generate approximately $1.2 billion annually in economic benefits. Given the ever-increasing stressors placed on our marine environment, such as climate change impacts, a statutory ban is critical to protect this major economic engine and cornerstone of resilience for our present and  future generations.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committees to pass HB2101 H1, with an amendment to restore the ban statewide, as originally drafted.

Mahalo for the opportunity to testify,

Submit Testimony by Wednesday, February 25, at 2:00 p.m.

Testimony received after the deadline will be accepted but considered late. Those who wish to testify via videoconference must also submit written testimony

SUMMARY OF HB2584_HD1 (Relating to the Public Land Trust)

• Currently, OHA receives only $21.5 million per year of public land trust (PLT) revenues— far below the estimated $35 to 80 million the state owes to OHA by law.
• HB2584_HD1 would increase OHA’s PLT revenue to an unstated amount closer to the actual 20% due under law for a temporary 2-year period, pending a more complete accounting of the amounts due to OHA.
• HB2584_HD1 does not yet include a specific amount but the hearing in Finance is an opportunity to ensure an amount that better reflects OHA’s 20% share is inserted into the bill.

WHY THIS BILL IS CRITICAL FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS

• The Hawaiʻi State Constitution guarantees Native Hawaiians a pro-rata share of PLT revenue and designates OHA to administer these funds on behalf of Native Hawaiian beneficiaries.
• The nearly 1.3 million acres in the PLT are primarily crown and government lands seized during the illegal overthrow.
• An OHA-funded financial review of fiscal year 2016 agency receipts determined that at least $394,322,163 was generated from the use and rental of PLT lands that year.
• At this rate of income generation, the 20% due to OHA is approximately $80 million per year but 10 years later, OHA still receives only $21.5 million annually.
• Chronic underfunding shortchanges OHA’s programs to benefit and uplift Native Hawaiians.

• Currently, $55 million is available to help fund any temporary two-year increase in an account earmarked for “overpayments” to OHA.
• Money in this account would have been transferred to OHA as part of its 20% share of PLT revenue, absent the existing $21.5 million limit on annual payments.

SAMPLE TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF HB2584_HD1. 

Use this sample to submit your own testimony: 

Aloha e Chair Todd, Vice Chair Takenouchi, and Members of the House Committee on Finance:

I am writing to express my strong support for HB2584_HD1, to ensure Native Hawaiian beneficiaries of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) receive their fair share of state revenues from the public land trust. While temporary, raising the current $21.5 million cap on payment to OHA is an intermediary step towards greater justice for Native Hawaiians.

I respectfully ask that the Committee set the annual payment at $50 million, which more accurately reflects OHA’s 20% share due under law.

OHA carries a large kuleana to better the conditions of Native Hawaiians. OHA has a proven track record of investing in strategic, innovative, and award-winning programs and services that advance systemic solutions to challenges faced by Hawaiians and other Hawai‘i residents.

As a snapshot, OHA-funded programs and services have launched small businesses; moved families off the streets; sent students to college; empowered grassroots groups to steward natural resources; and increased capacity of Hawaiian language charter schools to serve their surrounding communities. Without full funding, OHA’s ability to fulfill its critical kuleana is compromised.

This bill is not just about funding: it’s also about fairness and justice. The public land trust consists primarily of crown and government lands that were seized during the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Native Hawaiians have legal as well as moral claims not only to income, but to governance over these lands. Despite these claims, OHA receives only $21.5 million per year compared to an estimated $80 million that a 2016 OHA financial review showed were due to OHA nearly a decade ago.

As an OHA beneficiary and a voter, I urge the committee to pass HB2584_HD1 to help bring annual payments to OHA from the public land trust closer to $80 million, and at least $50 million, as this amount is already available in the state’s carry over account.

Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Submit Testimony by Monday, February 23, at 2:00 p.m.

Testimony received after the deadline will be accepted but considered late. Those who wish to testify via videoconference (Zoom) must also submit written testimony

WHY THIS BILL IS CRITICAL FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS

• The LUC was created in 1961 in response to the rapid and unregulated conversion of prime agricultural lands into other profit-driven uses during the Territorial period.
• The LUC is responsible for larger planning decisions that determine how land is used, and for classifying land into four districts: conservation, rural, agricultural, urban.
• Developers petition the LUC to reclassify land, usually to allow for more development or other uses on their land.
• As a quasi-judicial body, the LUC can require landowners and developers to protect natural resources and cultural practices, fulfill affordable housing mandates, and provide other community benefits.
• The LUC’s unique quasi-judicial process not only provides for appropriate due process, but also for public trust and Ka Paʻakai analyses as critical components to protecting Native Hawaiian rights.
• Informed land use decisions cannot be made without considering water source availability.
• This bill would require that the LUC have at least one member with expertise in water resource management and designate OHA to nominates candidates for the existing traditional Hawaiian Land usage
• These amendments would assure the LUC has the expertise to ensure that the constitutional principles protecting both wai and Native Hawaiians are consistently enforced.

SAMPLE TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF HB2103_HD1: 

Aloha e Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Members of the Committee.

I am writing in support of HB2103_HD1, which strengthens the Land Use Commission (LUC) by requiring at least one member have expertise in water management, and by designating the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) to nominate candidates for the traditional Native Hawaiian land usage seat. I urge the Committee to pass this bill for the following reasons:

Project Planning Must Consider Water Availability

Water and land are connected, and this is especially apparent in an island context. Each LUC decision that allows for denser development increases the burden on our water resources. Sound land use decision-making requires deliberate consideration of the increased demand associated with different land use entitlements. A dedicated water expert seat would help ensure this type of careful deliberation occurs at the outset of project planning before project size and infrastructure decisions have been locked in.

Professional Best Practices Calls for Integrated Water and Land Use Planning
Multiple professional associations, including the American Planning Association, encourage and support integrated water and land use planning as a best practice. As such, other states have also integrated water and land use planning processes to ensure water management is considered early in the project entitlement process. This model of planning best protects water sources over the long term and easily integrates into the existing regulatory structure. 

Supporting the LUC’s Constitutional Duties

As a state agency, the LUC has affirmative constitutional duties to protect public trust water resources and Native Hawaiian rights. Strengthening its membership with a water expert will better equip the LUC to fulfill its duty to protect public trust water resources. Moreover, allowing OHA a role in recruiting, vetting, and nominating candidates to the traditional Hawaiian Land usage seat would provide beneficiaries and the general public with the opportunity to provide early input on the selection of candidates. OHA nominees would be approved by the Board of Trustees at a public meeting prior to nomination, allowing for community input and feedback, and fostering greater awareness of the LUC’s critical role in protecting our ‘āina, wai, and cultural practices.

Accordingly, I urge the Committee to PASS HB2103_HD1.

Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Submit Testimony on HB2104 HD1 by Monday, February 23, at 2:00 p.m.

Testimony received after the deadline will be accepted but will be considered late. If you wish to testify via videoconference (Zoom), you must also submit written testimony.

SUMMARY OF HB2104_HD1 (Relating to Island Burial Councils)

• Island Burial Councils (IBCs) are the volunteer councils that make decisions about how iwi kūpuna (Hawaiian ancestral remains) are treated when identified prior to construction.
• Unfortunately, the IBCs often struggle to convene because of barriers in the law, resulting in multiple cancelled meetings each year.
• HB2104_HD1 reduces these structural barriers by:
  • Removing the existing prohibition on compensating IBC members to allow OHA to provide stipends so that financial need is not a barrier to service;
• Reforming the quorum requirements to a majority of appointed members (rather than including vacant seats) so IBCs can meet and make decisions more regularly; and
• Extending the timeline to recruit and nominate new IBC members for midterm vacancies to ensure adequate recruitment and publication timelines.

WHY THIS BILL IS CRITICAL FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS

• IBCs are the primary mechanism through which Native Hawaiian lineal and cultural descendants exercise decision-making power and self-determination over the care of their ancestors.
• When IBCs cannot meet, these voices are excluded.
• Functioning IBCs prioritize place-based decision-making proven to be effective in ensuring that decisions are culturally informed and have landowner buy-in.
• Moku representatives are selected based on their “understanding of the culture, history, burial beliefs, customs, and practices of Native Hawaiians in the region they each represent.”
• Allowing moku representatives to receive an optional stipend may increase participation for potential members who want to participate but face financial barriers to service.

SAMPLE TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF HB2104 HD1

Use this sample to submit your own testimony:

Aloha e Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Members of the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs.

I am writing in support of HB2104 HD1 for the following reasons:

Ensuring Island Burial Councils Conduct Business:
Quorum reform ensures Island Burial Councils (IBC) remain functional rather than merely symbolic. IBCs often struggle to fill all entitled seats, and current quorum requirements count vacant positions, which frequently prevents Councils from meeting and conducting business and results in repeated cancellations. Adjusting quorum to a majority of appointed members provides a simple, practical fix that allows Councils to fulfill their statutory duties.

A Modest Stipend Option Supports Recruitment and Participation:
IBC members currently serve without compensation, creating barriers for community members who must balance council duties with work and family obligations. The option for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to provide stipends to moku representatives would make IBC service more accessible, reduce vacancies, encourage participation, and acknowledge the value of services provided by Native Hawaiians who serve as council members.

Strong Island Burial Councils Benefit All Parties:
Reliable, fully functioning Island Burial Councils help prevent unnecessary project delays while upholding the state’s trust obligation to protect ancestral remains. Effective Councils allow families and cultural descendants to fulfill their kuleana to care for iwi kūpuna and provide project proponents with clear, timely, and culturally responsible direction when burials are discovered.

Accordingly, I ask the Committee to support of HB2104 HD1.

Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Submit Testimony by Wednesday, February 18 ,at 9:00 a.m.

Testimony received after the deadline will be accepted but considered late. Those who wish to testify via videoconference (Zoom) must also submit written testimony

Summary of HB2582 (Relating to Hawaiian Affairs):

• In 2022, Act 226 created the PLTWG working group to: 1) account for all ceded lands in the PLT; 2) account for all income and proceeds from the PLT; and 3) ensure that OHA receives its 20% share as mandated by state law.
• The PLTWG was intended to resolve decades of disputes concerning the amount due to OHA’s Native Hawaiian beneficiaries.
• HB2582 would advance this work by directing the PLTWG to contract third-party professionals to help fulfill the mandate of Act 226 and by designating OHA to administratively support these professionals.
• HB2582 would also set specific deadlines for interim and final reports related to the land inventory and receipts audit, and amend the composition of the PLTWG to add additional members.

Why This Bill is Critical for Native Hawaiians:

• The Hawaiʻi State Constitution guarantees Native Hawaiians a pro-rata share of public land trust (PLT) revenues and designates OHA to administer these funds on behalf of Native Hawaiian beneficiaries.
• The nearly 1.3 million acres in the PLT are primarily Hawaiian crown and government lands seized during the illegal overthrow.
• An OHA-funded financial review of fiscal year 2016 agency reporting determined that the 20% due to OHA at that time was approximately $80 million per year.
• Even though Act 226 increased the amount that agencies must transfer to OHA, OHA still receives only $21.5 million annually, about 5% of the proceeds identified in the 2016 financial review.
• This chronic underfunding limits OHA’s ability to offer programs, grants, loans, research, and advocacy to directly uplift Native Hawaiians.
• A renewed review of audits and receipts by the PLTWG, with assistance from outside professionals, would provide updated financial data and help resolve misconceptions that discourage some legislators from raising the cap on the amount OHA receives each year.
• While the legislature has the authority and duty to immediately raise the cap based on publicly available data, OHA supports legislation directing the PLTWG to hire third-party professionals to assist in meeting the mandates of Act 226.
• OHA is also asking to amend the changes to the working group composition to ensure that OHA’s voting power is not diluted.

Sample Testimony in Support with Amendments of HB2582

Use this sample to submit your own testimony:

Aloha e Chair Hashem, Vice Chair Morikawa, and Members of the House Committee on Water & Land.

I am writing to express my strong support for HB2582, to ensure that Native Hawaiian beneficiaries receive their rightful share of revenues generated from the public land trust (PLT) through full support of the Public Land Trust Working Group (PLTWG).

The Hawaiʻi State Constitution guarantees Native Hawaiians a pro rata portion of income derived from the PLT and designates OHA to administer those funds on their behalf.

The PLT is comprised primarily of Hawaiian Kingdom crown and government lands seized during the illegal overthrow. These lands were ceded to the United States by the unlawful Republic of Hawai‘i without the consent of, or compensation to, Native Hawaiians, and eventually transferred to the State of Hawai‘i through the 1959 Admissions Act.

Despite moral and legal claims made over decades, OHA continues to receive only $21.5 million annually, an amount that falls painfully short of the 20% of public land trust revenues it is owed under the Hawai‘i Constitution and state law. See Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) §10-13.5.

Specifically, a 2016 financial analysis found revenue sources that suggest that OHA should receive between $35 and $80 million annually, depending on the revenue streams included. This shortfall directly limits OHA’s ability to carry out its constitutional kuleana, which is particularly concerning during this time of cuts to critical, federally funded Native Hawaiian programs.

This bill would help advance justice for OHA’s Native Hawaiian beneficiaries by directing the PLTWG to hire third-party professionals, and ensure completion of the work set forth in Act 226.

While the legislature has the authority and duty to immediately raise the annual amount transferred to OHA based on publicly available data, directing the PLTWG to hire third-party professionals is a critical pathway to resolve disputes around revenues and lands that may discourage the legislature from immediately taking this step.

At the same time, I respectfully request that you ensure that OHA has a representative voice on the PLTWG by amending the bill so that OHA retains four of nine designated seats, with the ninth seat (designated for a community member) to be elected by the other eight members.

As a beneficiary and voter, I respectfully urge the Committee to pass HB2582 and ensure that the PLTWG has the resources and authority necessary to fulfill its mandate.

Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Submit Testimony on HB2101 by Tuesday, February 17, at 8:45 a.m.

Testimony received after the deadline will be accepted but considered late. Those who wish to testify via videoconference (Zoom) must also submit written testimony

Summary of HB2101 (Relating to Environmental Protection):

• HB2101 bans collection of Hawai‘i’s marine life for sale as aquarium pets.
• HB2101 explicitly preserves collection for:
  • Traditional and customary practices;
  • Scientific research and education programs, such as the Waikīkī Aquarium;
  • Aquaculture and captive-breeding programs, including fishponds; and
  • Personal use, such as bait.
• HB2101 deletes the statutory section which the Attorney General claims prevents the Board of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) from banning commercial aquarium collection at the agency level.

WHY THIS BILL IS CRITICAL:

• The negative impact of commercial aquarium collection on our reef ecosystems has adversely affected our community for decades.
• Maui, Kaua‘i, and Hawai‘i counties have all enacted resolutions limiting commercial aquarium collection or calling for an outright ban.
• Communities in areas where the industry targets its collections have also called for a ban of the practice, which has highly localized impacts and impairs subsistence uses of reef resources in the targeted areas, including Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices.
• In 2017, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court halted collection until the industry completed an environmental review as required by the Hawai‘i Environmental Policy Act (HEPA).
• After nearly a decade without commercial collection, the state is now proposing rules to reopen West Hawai‘i to the seven businesses who participated in the HEPA process.
• Under the quota system established by the Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) to support its finding that the industry is “sustainable,” collection would essentially be closed to newcomers and would require intensive Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement (DOCARE) resources to enforce and police.
• There are Native Hawaiian communities across kō Hawaiʻi pae ʻāina waiting for DAR’s support to co-manage their marine resources and address other urgent threats.
• Banning aquarium collection would not only protect critical natural resources and Native Hawaiian communities but also enable DAR to focus its attention where it is critically needed.

Use these samples to submit your own personalized testimony:

SAMPLE TESTIMONY 1

Aloha e Chairs Lowen and Hashem, Vice Chairs Perruso and Morikawa, and Members of the House Committees on Energy and Environmental Protection and Water and Land.

I strongly support HB2101 which would establish a statewide ban on the collection of reef resources for commercial aquarium sale and ensure that West Hawai‘i and other areas targeted by the industry remain closed as they have been for nearly 10 years.

Protecting Targeted Communities

Commercial aquarium collection removes vital species from our reef ecosystems for commercial sale and captivity. Historically, commercial aquarium collectors have focused their efforts on specific geographic areas—with measurable negative effects on the density of fish and other species in these areas.

Species targeted for collection include culturally valuable fish such as lauʻī pala (Yellow Tang) and umaumalei (Clown Tang) which practitioners have observed declining in abundance over the years. Worse, about half of the targeted species die during collection and transport, and of those that survive, about 80% die within a year of captivity. In the wild, targeted species like lauʻī pala and umaumalei can live for more than 25 years.

Ensuring Reef Health

Meanwhile, healthy and vibrant coral reefs generate more than $1.2 billion annually in tourism revenue and provide critical ecosystem services, including shoreline protection and food security. A statutory ban on commercial aquarium collection protects this economic engine and foundation of resilience and preserves Hawaiʻi’s marine resources for future generations by ensuring species that support reef health remain on the reef.

Reducing Regulatory Costs

A clear prohibition would also simplify enforcement and reduce the cost that this industry poses to the state. To support its recent conclusion that commercial aquarium extraction in West Hawai‘i is sustainable, the Division of Aquatic Resources(DAR) created a quota-based permit system which essentially closes the industry to the seven businesses who participated in the environmental review process. A quota-based permit system closes economic pathways to industry newcomers and requires intense policing that takes away from other vital duties of our Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement (DOCARE officers). This means that state resources that should be directed elsewhere would be used to manage and oversee the small number of industry participants.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committees to pass HB2101.

Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Sample Testimony 2:

Aloha e Chairs Lowen and Hashem, Vice Chairs Perruso and Morikawa, and Members of the House Committees on Energy and Environmental Protection and Water and Land.

I strongly support HB2101 which would establish a statewide ban on the collection of reef resources for commercial aquarium sale and ensure that West Hawai‘i and other areas targeted by the industry remain closed as they have been for nearly 10 years.

Commercial aquarium fishing flies in the face of Hawaiʻi’s constitutional public trust doctrine, which requires that our natural and cultural resources be used and conserved for the public good, rather than private gain. Prior to 2017, the aquarium collection industry extracted and exported millions of specimens of public trust marine life for commercial sale, the vast majority of which reportedly died within a year after collection.

At the same time, this commercial activity has diminished the ecological and cultural integrity of our reef systems, undermined the state’s food security and climate resilience, and degraded a cornerstone of our tourism-based economy. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of Hawaiʻi residents, and Native Hawaiian subsistence communities in particular, support a complete ban on commercial aquarium collection.

While commercial aquarium collection has not been allowed for the better part of a decade, the Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) recently proposed rules that would reopen West Hawai‘i waters to commercial aquarium collection, claiming that they are mandated to do so under state law. Yet as DAR has recognized, agency rulemaking regulates how an activity operates, not whether the activity should be allowed. Accordingly, the Legislature has the authority—and responsibility—to decide whether this activity should be permitted at all.

Healthy coral reefs support food security, cultural and subsistence practices, and shoreline protection; on-reef tourism activities generate approximately $1.2 billion annually in economic benefits. Therefore, because of the ever-increasing stressors placed on our precious marine environment, a statutory ban is critical to protect this major economic engine and cornerstone of resilience for present and  future generations.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committees to pass HB2101.

Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Submit Testimony on HB2584 by Wednesday, February 11, at 2:00 p.m.

Testimony received after the deadline will be accepted but considered late. Those who wish to testify via videoconference (Zoom) must also submit written testimony

Summary of HB2584 (Relating to the Public Land Trust):

• The public land trust (PLT) inventory is comprised of former Hawaiian Kingdom and government lands. Codified in 1980, state law (§HRS 10-13.5) entitles OHA to 20% of all PLT revenues.
• Currently, OHA receives only $21.5 million per year of PLT revenues—far below the estimated $35 to $80 million the state owes to OHA under the law.
• Chronic underfunding shortchanges OHA’s programs to benefit and uplift Native Hawaiians through innovative programs, individual grants and loans, and systemic advocacy and research efforts.
• HB2584 would increase OHA’s public land trust revenue to an unstated amount closer to the actual 20% due under law.

Why this bill is critical for Native Hawaiians:

• The Hawaiʻi State Constitution recognizes the Native Hawaiian people’s right to a fair, pro rata share of the income and proceeds from the PLT.
• The PLT is comprised primarily of lands seized during the illegal overthrow, and currently held in trust by the State of Hawai‘i.
• The state constitution identifies OHA as the body to administer funds from the PLT for the betterment of Native Hawaiians.
• Despite these constitutional mandates, Native Hawaiians continue to struggle to ensure they get their fair share of PLT revenues, recognized and affirmed in statute as 20% of all revenues.
• An OHA-funded financial review of fiscal year 2016 agency reporting determined that the amount due to OHA at that time was approximately $35 million from uncontested revenue streams that the state and OHA have historically agreed that OHA is entitled to receive.
• OHA believes this amount should have been closer to $80 million per year when revenue streams that the state has historically contested are factored in.
• Despite §HRS 10-13.5 being on the books since 1980, OHA receives just $21.5 million per year (about 5%) of PLT revenues.

SAMPLE TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF HB2584

Use this sample to submit your own testimony:

Aloha e Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Members of the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs:

I am writing to express my strong support for HB2584, to ensure that Native Hawaiian beneficiaries of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) receive their fair share of state revenues from the public land trust.

OHA carries a large kuleana to better the conditions of Native Hawaiians. OHA has a proven track record of investing in strategic, innovative, and award-winning programs and services that advance systemic solutions to challenges faced by Hawaiians and other Hawai‘i residents. As a snapshot, OHA-funded programs and services have launched small businesses, moved families off the streets, sent students to college, empowered grassroots groups to steward natural resources, and increased the capacity of Hawaiian language charter schools to serve their surrounding communities. Without full funding, OHA’s ability to fulfill its critical kuleana is compromised.

This bill is not just about funding: it’s also about fairness and justice. The public land trust consists primarily of crown and government lands that were seized during the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Native Hawaiians have legal as well as moral claims – not only to income, but also to governance over these lands. Despite these claims, OHA receives only $21.5 million per year compared to the estimated $80 million that a 2016 audit showed was due to OHA under state law.

As an OHA beneficiary and a voter, I urge the committee to pass HB2584 to help bring OHA’s funding closer to $80 million per year.

Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

[Your Name]

[Your Community & Island]

Submit Testimony on HB2102 by Tuesday, February 10, at 9:00 a.m.

Testimony received after the deadline will be accepted but considered late. Those who wish to testify via videoconference (Zoom) must also submit written testimony

CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT TESTIMONY ON HB2102

Summary of HB2102 (Relating to Historic Preservation):

• Act 293 (signed July 2025) created a dangerous loophole in Hawaiʻi’s Historic Preservation Law allowing residential projects in so-called “nominally sensitive” areas to bypass historic review.
• “Nominally sensitive” could be interpreted to include large, multi-unit projects in areas known to contain a high concentration of iwi, simply because there was prior construction on the site.
• However, many subdivisions and neighborhoods in Hawai‘i were built before the law requiring protection and reporting of disinterred iwi and cultural sites was enacted, so “prior construction” itself is not a meaningful measure of risk.
• HB2102 would restore long standing protection by removing the “nominally sensitive area” exemption and provide more specific guidelines when historic review should occur for residential properties to prevent harm.
• Specifically, any property with or abutting jaucus sands; previously identified burials, cemeteries, or cultural sites; or lava tube systems must be subject to further review.

WHY THIS BILL IS CRITICAL:

• Hawai‘i’s Historic Preservation Law is a critical safeguard to prevent development from erasing Hawaiian history, especially through the disturbance of iwi kūpuna, cultural sites, and historic places central to Native Hawaiian identity and wellbeing.
• For decades, this law has required project review by the State Historic Preservation Division for risk to cultural sites and iwi.
• Early review enables the identification of burials and cultural or historic sites before excavation, when project redesign and preservation in place are still viable options.
• When iwi kūpuna are discovered during active construction, decisions must be made within 2–3 days to avoid delay, and redesign options are limited.
• Moreover, this emergency process sidelines Island Burial Councils and limits meaningful participation by lineal and cultural descendants.
• Burial disturbance is irreversible. Once iwi kūpuna are damaged or disturbed, no mitigation can undo the harm.

Restoring early review, particularly in high-risk areas, is essential to protect the voice of lineal and cultural descendants in decisions on the disposition of our iwi kūpuna and to minimize the occurrence of harm.

SAMPLE TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF HB2102

Personalize this sample to submit your own testimony:

Aloha e Chair Evslin, Vice Chair Miyake, and members of the committee,

Mahalo for setting this bill for hearing. I strongly support HB2102 and ask that the Committee pass this bill for the following reasons:

Reinstate longstanding protections and protect descendant voices

HB2102 would restore longstanding protections applied to private property and ensure that the state meets its constitutional obligations to protect iwi kūpuna and cultural and historic sites. Review of proposed projects by the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD)—particularly in known high-risk areas as set forth in this bill—helps avoid irreversible harm by ensuring the early identification of iwi kūpuna and historic sites when project redesign and preservation in place are still viable options to prevent irreversible harm. Early identification also ensures that Island Burial Councils are consulted, and lineal and cultural descendants have a voice in determining the disposition of their ancestors through input on burial treatment plans and relocation decisions.

Provides guidance to prevent harm to our most vulnerable sites

In addition to restoring longstanding protections, this bill would also streamline review processes by identifying the highest-risk areas that are a priority for review by SHPD. Jaucus sands (sand dunes), lava tube and karst systems, and previously identified cultural sites, burials and cemeteries are all key indicators that a property may contain undiscovered burials and cultural patrimony. Clarifying that these areas require review by SHPD will help to prioritize review and protection of these vulnerable areas and help avoid and minimize harm. The burden on the state to protect iwi kūpuna is heightened when there are readily available indicators to help guide and shape review and protection determinations to ensure against available disinterment.

Building trust in our regulatory system

Hawaiʻi can build more housing and protect iwi kūpuna. Creative housing solutions require policies that reduce uncertainty and risk for housing projects without sacrificing the state’s responsibility to protect cultural resources. Concerns about delays caused by the historic preservation review process are vastly overstated and bypassing early review does not streamline development or reduce costs for homeowners. On the contrary, skipping review increases the likelihood of construction delays, lawsuits, and community discord when iwi kūpuna are disinterred and harmed after construction has started. Broad and poorly defined exemptions invite misuse and erode cooperative solutions needed to ensure that the state’s multiple policy goals are attained in a just, transparent, and fair way.

Mahalo nui for the opportunity to present testimony,

[City, Island]

Submit Testimony by Monday, February 9, at 1:00 p.m.

Testimony received after the deadline will be accepted but considered late. Those who wish to testify via videoconference (Zoom) must also submit written testimony

CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT TESTIMONY ON SB 2996 

Summary of SB2996 (Relating to Environmental Protection):

• SB2996 establishes a statewide statutory prohibition on the commercial collection of marine life for sale and export as aquarium pets.
• SB2996 explicitly preserves:
  • Scientific research and educational activities
  • Aquaculture and captive-breeding
• The bill resolves a fundamental policy question: whether nearshore reef species should be treated as export commodities or protected as public trust resources.
• This bill is substantially similar to OHA’s proposed ban (HB2101/SB2535)

WHY THIS BILL IS CRITICAL:

• Commercial aquarium collection has engendered decades of conflict over the profit-driven extraction of culturally and ecologically significant species, such as kole and other reef herbivores, from our nearshore ecosystems.
• Native Hawaiian subsistence communities, in particular, have called for the end of this extractive industry, which has impaired and disrupted subsistence fishing practices, and treats public trust marine resources as mere ornaments for off-island buyers.
• Studies show that 50% or more of targeted reef fish die during capture and transport, and most of the survivors die within the first year of captivity. In the wild, some species, like Yellow Tang, can live for decades.
• While the industry has been shut down for the better part of a decade pursuant to a court order, and despite surveys showing that the majority of Hawaiʻi residents support a ban, the state is now proposing rules to reopen collection in West Hawai‘i.
• SB2996 would prevent the Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) from claiming that state law requires them to allow commercial aquarium collection and eliminate the need to expend public resources on a costly permitting system.
• There are Native Hawaiian communities across kō Hawaiʻi pae ʻāina waiting for DAR’s support to co-manage their marine resources and address other urgent threats.
• This bill would allow DAR to focus attention where it is critically needed rather than on supporting an industry with negligible economic benefits to the state and its residents.

Use these samples to submit your own personalized testimony:

SAMPLE TESTIMONY 1

Aloha e Chairs Lee and Richards, Vice Chairs Inouye and Lamosao, and members of the Senate Committees on Water, Land, and Culture and the Arts and Hawaiian Affairs,

I strongly support SB 2996, which establishes a statewide prohibition on commercial aquarium collection.

This bill would finally resolve a long-standing conflict that the Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources has failed to address. Commercial aquarium collection raises a threshold policy question: whether reef species held in trust for Hawaiʻi’s people should be extracted for profit and sold as ornamental commodities, primarily for off-island consumers. Only the Legislature has the authority—and responsibility—to make that determination.

Hawaiʻi’s Constitution requires the state to conserve natural resources, protect environmental rights, and safeguard Native Hawaiian customary and traditional practices. These constitutional obligations are incompatible with the continued commercial extraction of reef species for aquarium resale.

Healthy coral reefs generate more than $1.2 billion annually in tourism revenue and provide critical ecosystem services, including shoreline protection and food security. A statutory ban on commercial aquarium collection protects this economic engine and foundation of resilience and preserves Hawaiʻi’s marine resources for future generations.

A clear prohibition also provides legal certainty, simplifies enforcement, and affirms that nearshore reefs are public trust resources deserving the highest level of protection. Because the commercial aquarium industry has not operated for the past five years due to litigation, now is the appropriate time to resolve this issue without economic disruption.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committees to pass SB 2996.

Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Sample Testimony 2:

Aloha e Chairs Lee and Richards, Vice Chairs Inouye and Lamosao, and members of the Senate Committees on Water, Land, and Culture and the Arts and Hawaiian Affairs:

I strongly support SB 2996, which establishes a statewide prohibition on commercial aquarium collection consistent with the public trust and the needs of Hawaiʻi’s residents, including Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners and the public at large.

Commercial aquarium fishing flies in the face of Hawaiʻi’s constitutional public trust doctrine, which requires that our natural and cultural resources be used and conserved for the public good rather than private gain. But the aquarium collection industry has extracted and exported millions of specimens of public trust marine life —the vast majority of which die within a year after collection—for private (primarily out of state) profit.

At the same time, this commercial activity has diminished the ecological and cultural integrity of our reef systems, undermined the state’s food security and climate resilience, and degraded a cornerstone of our tourism-based economy. Not surprisingly, the majority of Hawaiʻi residents, and Native Hawaiian subsistence communities in particular, support a ban on commercial aquarium collection.

While commercial aquarium collection has not been allowed for the better part of a decade, the Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) has recently proposed rules that would reopen West Hawai‘i waters to commercial aquarium collection, claiming that they are mandated to do so under state law. Yet as DAR has recognized, agency rulemaking regulates how an activity operates, not whether the activity should be allowed. Accordingly, the Legislature has the authority—and responsibility—to decide whether this activity should be permitted at all.

Healthy coral reefs and ecosystems support food security, cultural and subsistence practices, and provide shoreline protection. In addition, on-reef tourism activities that depend on vibrant and healthy ecosystems generate approximately $1.2 billion annually for the state.

Therefore, a statutory ban is critical to protect what is not only a major economic engine for the state, but a cornerstone of resilience and self-sufficiency for our present and future generations from ever-increasing extractive stressors placed on our marine environment.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committees to pass SB 2996.

Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Sample testimony is provided below.

Submit Testimony by Monday, February 9 at 9:00 a.m.

Testimony received after the deadline will be accepted but considered late. Those who wish to testify via videoconference (Zoom) must also submit written testimony

CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT TESTIMONY ON HB2103

WHY THIS BILL IS CRITICAL FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS

• The LUC was created in 1961 in response to the rapid and unregulated conversion of prime agricultural lands into other profit-driven uses in the Territorial period.
• The LUC is responsible for larger planning decisions that determine how land is used, classifying land into four districts (conservation, rural, agricultural, urban).
• Developers petition the LUC to reclassify land, usually to allow for more development or other uses on their land.
• As a quasi-judicial body, the LUC can require landowners and developers to protect natural resources and cultural practices, fulfill affordable housing mandates, and provide other community benefits.
• The LUC’s unique quasi-judicial process not only provides for appropriate due process, but also public trust and Ka Paʻakai analyses as critical components to protecting Native Hawaiian rights.
• Informed land use decisions cannot be made without considering water source availability.
• This bill would require that the LUC have at least one member with expertise in water resource management and designate OHA to nominate candidates for the existing traditional Hawaiian land usage seat.
• These amendments would empower the LUC to ensure that constitutional principles protecting wai and Native Hawaiian rights are consistently enforced.

SAMPLE TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF HB2103

Use this sample to submit your own testimony:

Aloha e Chair Hashem, Vice Chair Morikawa, and Members of the Committee,

I am writing in support of HB2103, which strengthens the Land Use Commission (LUC) by ensuring essential water expertise is required, and designates the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) to nominate candidates for the traditional Native Hawaiian land usage seat. I urge the Committee to pass this bill for the following reasons:

Project Planning Must Consider Water Availability:

Water and land are connected, and this is especially apparent in an island context. Each LUC decision that allows for denser development carries implicit assumptions about associated water resource availability. Sound land use decision-making requires deliberate consideration of water source availability and impacts. A dedicated water expert seat would help ensure that this type of careful deliberation occurs at the outset of project planning before project size and infrastructure decisions have been locked in.

Professional Best Practices Call for Integrated Water and Land Use Planning:

Multiple professional associations, including the American Planning Association, encourage and support integrated water and land use planning as best practices. As such, other states have also integrated water and land use planning processes by ensuring water management is considered early in the project entitlement process. This model of planning best protects water sources over the long term.

Supporting the LUC’s Constitutional Duties:

As a state agency, the LUC has affirmative constitutional duties to protect public trust water resources and Native Hawaiian rights.

Strengthening its membership with a water expert will better equip the LUC to fulfill its duty to protect public trust water resources. Moreover, allowing OHA a role in recruiting, vetting, and nominating candidates to the traditional Hawaiian land usage seat would provide beneficiaries and the general public with the opportunity to provide early input on the selection of candidates. OHA nominees would be approved by the Board of Trustees at a public meeting prior to nomination, allowing for community input and feedback, and fostering greater awareness of the LUC’s critical role in protecting our ‘āina.

Accordingly, I urge the Committee to PASS HB2103.

Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.