Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Important Agricultural Lands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over who should map Important Agricultural Lands; Farm Bureau calls for funding
Summary
SB 1099, which would advance designation of Important Agricultural Lands (IAL), drew support for preserving farmland but questions about county capacity and funding. The Land Use Commission said the bill’s language needs work and warned counties lack resources to complete mapping without state support.
Lawmakers reviewed SB 1099, a bill addressing designation and mapping of Important Agricultural Lands (IAL). Testimony ranged from support for preserving agricultural land to concerns the bill imposes an unfunded mandate on counties.
Brian Miyamoto of the Hawaii Farm Bureau said the organization strongly supports IAL but urged that the state provide funding to counties so they can complete mapping. “We prefer to see some funds going to the counties to assist them in identifying those lands that should be IAL,” Miyamoto said, noting prior incentives bills and the long history of incomplete mapping.
Arnold Wong, speaking for the Land Use Commission (LUC), said the bill’s intent is good but the current language is “suspect” and effectively imposes unfunded duties on counties. “If you are gonna pass it on to the counties, they should get some resources,” Wong said, adding the LUC could do the work better if funded and staffed.
Committee members debated why county mapping has lagged since prior IAL legislation was adopted in 2005 and 2008, and whether the LUC could complete designations by the 2027 deadline set in the bill. LUC witnesses and farm advocates said limited staff and funding have delayed completion and recommended the legislature consider appropriations to support county mapping.
The chair moved to pass a revised version that focuses the initial designation on state and county lands rather than all private lands; the committee adopted that change along with technical amendments and deferred the effective date to allow drafting.
Members framed the bill as a preservation tool that should be paired with state funding to finish a decades‑old implementation task.
