Forever farming bill falters

LIHUE — With little or no warning, a second bill aimed at stripping the ability of counties to restrict farming beyond state and federal law popped up in the Hawaii Senate this week.

Same language. Different approach. Both pushed forward by Big Island Sen. Clarence Nishihara.

But the new measure, which some quickly called political maneuvering, died just as quickly as it was introduced.

Like its predecessor, Senate Bill 3058, SB110 would have expanded Hawaii’s Right to Farm Act by adding language that says, “The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this State.”

“No law, ordinance, or resolution of any unit of local government shall be enacted that abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production, and ranching practices not prohibited by federal or state law, rules, or regulations,” it continued.

Unlike the former, however, SB110 was a short form bill, one carried over from the 2013 legislative session.

On Monday, Nishihara gave the empty bill new life, inserted language from SB3058 and scheduled a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture — of which he is chair — for the following day, Tuesday.

In addition to a last-minute hearing, no one was allowed to speak Tuesday.

“This is a decision-making meeting, no testimony will be accepted,” the agenda stated.

“This is the Legislature at its worst,” Kauai County Councilman Tim Bynum said prior to the hearing. “They’re trying to slip it through.”

The committee ultimately voted 3-3 on the measure Tuesday afternoon, killing the bill and causing those gathered inside Conference Room 229 of the State Capitol to erupt in applause.

“I tell you what, I’ll throw you out if you start clapping,” Nishihara said.  

Prior to Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Ron Kouchi, D-Kauai, Niihau, foreshadowed his “no” vote.

“I voted against a similar bill in committee last year,” he said. “And from what I’ve read so far, I will probably be voting no this time.”

Sens. Laura Thielen and Kalani English also voted against the bill.

English said he supports home rule and feels that counties need to be able to make their own decisions, as well as their own mistakes. Preventing them from doing so is a “dangerous, slippery slope,” he said.

Thielen said common practice and procedure is to use short form bills when there isn’t already a bill in play.

“I think given the eye attention to this matter, to go this route just raises a lot of questions in people’s minds that, you know, it’s not fair,” she said. “And I think we should just have a hearing on the original bill.”

Kauai County Councilman Gary Hooser, who served in the Hawaii Senate from 2002 to 2010, said short form bills are normally used as a last resort and not when another bill with the same goal, like SB3058, is still on the table.

After being referred to four separate committees, however, the original bill could be headed for defeat.

“It’s no question that the chair of the agricultural committee is using the short form bill to bypass the referral process,” he said.

If passed, Hooser believes the bill would nullify County Ordinance 960, a law passed in November which gives the county the  power to regulate pesticide use and genetically modified crop production by Kauai’s largest agricultural entities, as well as the ordinance on the Big Island that bans new genetically modified field crops on that island.

SB110, Hooser said, was another indication of how far the industry is willing to push and a sign of the arrogance of certain legislators.

“Instead of going through the process like normal, (Nishihara’s) trying this route that goes under the table,” he said.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Nishihara said that although the bill was “attempting to move a particular measure forward” and was going to be “an uphill climb,” he felt if counties had the wherewithal to handle the issue on their own, they wouldn’t come “hat-in-hand” to the state for support.

His hope with introducing the bill was to have a rational discussion, without emotion, where people on both sides of the issue could speak, he said.

“Let’s deal with science to science, data to data, and let the balance weigh itself,” he said.