Senators defer bill that would add customary Native Hawaiian subsistence farming to Right to Farm protections

A joint hearing of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Environment and the Senate Committee on Hawaiian Affairs on Jan. 24 considered SB 240, a bill that would amend the Hawaii Right to Farm Act (chapter 165) to include customary and traditional subsistence farming conducted by Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners and to exclude concentrated animal feeding operations and business entities with unclear ownership structures from Right to Farm protections. Senator Gabbard, chair of the Agriculture and Environment Committee, recommended deferring the bill indefinitely.

The bill’s sponsor and multiple testifiers described the measure as an attempt to clarify the intent of the Right to Farm Act and to explicitly protect customary subsistence practices. Sharon Hurd, Department of Agriculture director, said the department “recognizes the importance of customary Native Hawaiian rights” but urged caution. Hurd said the department is concerned about “the collective effect on the purpose of chapter 165” and recommended a statewide study to define appropriate good agricultural practices before statutory changes.

Commercial agriculture representatives warned the bill’s exclusions could harm large-scale producers. Scott Enright of Villa Rose/Waialua Eggs opposed the bill in its current form, saying exclusion of concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, could remove protections from modern operations that meet regulatory standards; Enright said expanding capacity “would hinder moving forward with the capitalization of expansion.” Nicole Galassi, managing director of the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council, urged against a blanket exclusion of CAFOs, saying “not all who meet the definition of CAFO are detrimental” and that regulations should be enforced rather than protections removed.

Farm advocacy groups and Native-practices advocates voiced support for the bill. Hunter Hevelin of the Hawaii Farmers Union said the measure would help integrate traditional practices under Chapter 165 protections and argued the Right to Farm law was originally designed to protect agricultural activities from urban encroachment. Several testifiers raised concerns that the bill, as drafted, would require the Department of Agriculture to make determinations about who qualifies as a customary practitioner — a role some senators said might duplicate constitutional protections or require a legal opinion.

Senators and witnesses also highlighted gaps and next steps. Hurd said there are currently no statewide Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPS) for Hawaii and recommended a coordinated study to develop standards and clarify how customary practices could be integrated with chapter 165 protections.

With divergent testimony on the bill’s potential effects on agricultural expansion, community nuisance protection and constitutional rights, the Agriculture and Environment committee recommended deferring SB 240 indefinitely for further study and clarification.