Bill would expedite farmland transfers

While two state agencies continue to vie over management of about 100,000 acres of state land set aside for agriculture, lawmakers are pushing a bill to expedite the transfer of those lands to support local farming and ranching.

The Department of Land and Natural Resources since 2003 has been moving non­agricultural land in its inventory over to the Department of Agriculture as a part of Act 90, a law meant to facilitate agriculture in Hawaii.

Nearly 20,000 acres have been transferred since Act 90 became law nearly 20 years ago, but about 100,000 acres of pasture and agricultural land await disposition as both departments argue who is better able to manage the land.

Many parcels still eligible for transfer are being used by ranchers, although the DLNR believes it should maintain control of the land because of its importance to conservation efforts.

Some of the land in question contains “irreplaceable native forest, endangered species, and recreational value,” DLNR said in written testimony against House Bill 1658, which was introduced during this year’s legislative session to facilitate the transfer of eligible Act 90 lands.

The bill, which passed its final Senate committee hearings April 5, could fundamentally change the way the land is transferred, which until now has been through mutual agreement by the boards of both agencies.

The transfer of land, especially as of late, has been rife with disagreement because DLNR has refused to give up land it wants to keep for potential conservation purposes, while the Agriculture Department has declined to take parcels unsuitable for farming.

The bill, introduced by Rep. David Tarnas (D, Kau­pu­­lehu-Waimea-Halaula), appears to force the transfer of the eligible land in question to the Department of Agriculture, subject to an evaluation of its suitability for farming.

When the bill left the House of Representatives, it had support from both departments because its primary goal was to establish and maintain easements for conservation, hunting, cultural or recreational purposes, which would have cleared the way for the transfer of about 7,000 acres.

However, the Senate amended the bill, removing DLNR’s ability to refuse the transfer of the 100,000 acres while requiring the Agriculture Department to accept it. DLNR, the Nature Conservancy and Sierra Club of Hawaii oppose the amended version.

“DLNR strongly recommends retaining the existing and original Act 90 processes that require, among other things, approval by both BLNR and BOA for lands to be transferred,” DLNR said in a written testimony for the April 5 Senate committee hearings, adding that it “strongly believes the transfer of large tracts of land in pasture use would result in the degradation of these constitutionally protected public purposes.”

It said the protection of endangered species, historic and cultural sites, and watersheds will be maintained if both boards continue to have a say in which parcels are transferred.

Some ranchers who have been leasing eligible land have been frustrated with DLNR’s management. Ranchers have been able to use the land only via short-term, month-to-month revocable permits or must bid at public auctions for leases on parcels they’ve used and maintained for years.

Additionally, ranchers feel their interests are a low priority for DLNR, which they say focuses on conservation over agriculture.

A vocal proponent of the transfer of pasture lands is Lani Petrie, who manages the 34,000-acre Kapapala Ranch in Kau on Hawaii island. Petrie had said the ranch has happily worked with DLNR after it took about 1,250 acres of native forest from the ranch for conservation purposes in the 1980s.

The ranch also made improvements such as fences to keep cattle out of forests, she said, but other ranchers have been discouraged from undertaking improvements on land that is subject to public auction.

“The water system (at the ranch) was also in shambles in 1977. Again, there was no incentive for the previous ranch to repair anything if they stood a chance of losing it at public auction,” Petrie said in written testimony in August when a working group discussed issues surrounding Act 90.

“Today, with only eight years left on our lease, we have nearly 10 million gallons of water stored and two separate reliable water resources that deliver water through 110 miles of fully functioning pipeline. The Ranch’s water system has been used two times now for fighting wildfire in the adjacent Forest Reserve and National Park.”

Tarnas and Sen. Lorraine Inouye (D, Kaupulehu­-Waimea-North Hilo), who chair their respective House and Senate committees on Water and Land, along with representatives of DLNR, the Agriculture Department and other stakeholders, were part of that working group.

Proponents of keeping pasture lands under DLNR management have asked lawmakers to give the agency more flexible leasing options instead of forcing the transfer of lands.

In HB 1658’s current form, the Agriculture Department would have to consult with DLNR about necessary easements for conservation activities, hunting, gathering and recreation. Additionally, farmers would have to form conservation plans to protect against land degradation if it becomes a concern.

DLNR would still have the ability to withdraw pasture lands for reforestation purposes, according to the bill, but the boards of both the land and agricultural departments would have to agree on it. Additionally, DLNR would have to present a plan for reforestation or conservation on the land it does withdraw.

HB 1658 is headed for conference, where lawmakers will deal with the changes made to the bill over the course of the session, but Tarnas said he won’t support the bill in its current state.

“It’s primarily (Inouye’s) bill, which forces the transfer without the consent from anybody,” Tarnas said. “It undermines the entire intent of Act 90 by removing the mutual consent … and I don’t think that’s good land use policy. I’m still trying to figure out what’s the next step.”

Inouye, whose committee was involved in the making the most significant changes to HB 1658, did not respond to a Honolulu Star-Advertiser request for comment.