Ep 20. Ag Legislative Issues and Solutions

United States, and in some cases around the world. These podcasts were made possible by a grant from the University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, also known as CTAHR, and the Seeds of Wellbeing or SOW project, and is supported by a grant from the US Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and the Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

In the SOW project we've talked to a lot of people, almost 400 ag producers on the islands and talked about their top stressors, and one of the ones that keeps rising to the top is legislative issues. So, George's has been quite involved with the political side of ag production on Maui. Amy, you're gracious enough to come on and speak with us about things that you're seeing from your perspective.

In this episode, we speak with Georgia Pinsky, both a farmer and a farmer resource on the island of Maui, and also representative Amy Peruzzo from district 46 of Hawaiiʻs State Legislature, and a member of the Ag, Finance and Energy and Environmental Protection committees. We talk about stressors that producers have voiced related to legislative issues and also some possible solutions.

vet. And because you know, we, it was a pretty intense place, we raised all of our own meat and like we did, it was a lot of work. I understand a farmer's life. I understand ag and that was my whole community growing up and so like it did 4-H my whole life, FFA my whole life and I feel like it's my roots. And I, with the Ag work now on this committee, I feel like I'm coming back to that but with a particular lens. I've traveled

around the world a lot. And I've been paying attention to the possibilities for different ways of doing agriculture, sustainable regenerative agriculture, that we see not just in the history of Hawaii, but also in other places being kind of brought back to life. So I'm really interested in those approaches. And I think I'm just looking forward to this conversation to learn more. That's one of the things about this legislative work that I

really enjoy is the learning. So those dispositions have served me well. And I hope they serve my community well.

things. So I thought I would just mention a couple that that I've heard or we've heard on the project from the folks we've interviewed, and then maybe Georgia you can add some that I may have forgotten or that you see as priorities in your experience. And then we can we can talk about some of those. At the top of the list and related is legislative issues related to access to land or zoning, ability to find appropriate ag

land that is affordable. There's a feeling, thereʻs the general consensus that the priorities are given to developers, you know, the best land is prioritized for developers or the wealthy and so ag production is at the bottom of the list and often land is unavailable for ag producers, that's that is necessary for them to do what we want them to do. The ability to live on that land as well has

been an issue. Zoning, things related to off grid living, you know, tiny houses, if it's tiny houses or, or waste management solutions that that have evolved over the years yet, legislature and and legislation does not seem to be in sync with with or has kept pace with those those developments. So those are a few things that we've heard regularly, in some of the interviews and are frustrations and worries actually, and in some cases, deep worries and problems and barriers to success

for ag producers. But Georgia Do you have something you want to share?

ownership loan programs. They go up to $600,000, so this is almost enough, in many parts of Mali to purchase land, it's adequate on the Big Island, and I'm not as familiar with Oahu and Kauai real estate markets, so I won't comment on that, but here on Maui, it's kind of working. You have to be more creative, and so that includes buying land without a water meter, buying land that's more rural, buying land that was CPRʻd, and so possibly doesn't

come with a house permit. Those are the ways we find land that is affordable for less than $600,000. Once a farmer buys land, through the blessed program of the USDA, they can't live on it until they get a permited house on it. They're hundreds of 1000s of dollars away from being able to live on land they just bought and all they really want to do is grow

food. So we need to find a way to make it okay, for ag producers to live on land they own without spending the hundreds of 1000s of dollars that's needed to build a permitted house that gets a you know, occupancy permit. They're not looking for that many of these people are working on minimalism. They're working on small houses, they're working on off grid, they're working on a more environmentally pleasing lifestyle, and they don't necessarily need or want a large

"real" house anyway. So that's that's first and foremost, farmers can't afford to pay a mortgage and rent. It's just not possible. Commuting time is real. Ag theft is real. And the need to kilo, or observe your land at dawn at dusk, in the middle of the night is real. Some people are concerned about people squatting on the land, and I don't understand how you can use the word squatting for land that you own. Possibly you could squat at a beach park or on somebody else's private

property. But if you own the land, could we use a term like camping? It doesn't have the same negative connotations. I think that if people want to camp on their own land and if they are to rent a portable so that we don't have waste management concerns, at least at this point, that should be an easy short term solution. You want to be an ag producer? Live on your land. Simple. I have a couple of farmers who are living

in RVs. I've been working with Jared Burkett, who's a senior planner at the Maui county planning department. He tells me there is a space in the state zoning that specifically outlaws the use of motorhomes RVs or any converted vehicle for living in I didn't know this and the farmers that I'm working with they all think that they are in compliance living in their RVs on their land. They're not at the state level. The county doesn't have any regulations

about RVs. So we're looking for suggestions about what the state can do to make it more realistic for ag producers to live on land they own. Land that people are leasing is a whole different topic. But if they've went through the process and the emotional and financial commitment to purchase their own farm, it ought to be like Texas or Iowa or one of these other states where the zoning regulations are not so strict. My colleagues in Montana go wait a minute, you can't live on the

land you own? A second piece of this is the capitalistic culture of real estate. And I want to just step way back to the the meta perspective of can the city legislature reevaluate what we mean by highest and best use? Because as I read it, highest and best uses a reasonable legal use of vacant land, which is physically and financially feasible that results in the highest financial value. Sometimes the highest value is

not the best use. So can we separate highest use from best use, because that's one of the things that's making it impossible to get farmers on land, particularly here on Maui. I don't know where that definition comes from, or who sets that definition or if the state legislature could, does even have the capacity to make that recognition. But having the word highest and the word best be synonyms as though they mean the same thing is really messing up the way property values work.

Somebody the other day, I think out of Hawaii Farmers Union Chapter, Puna, said something about anti speculator laws, and brought up that in New England, they have such a thing. I had never heard of it and I think it would be something that would be fabulous to explore. Hana ranch just went up for sale, it sold 10 years ago for 10 million and is now on the market for $75 million. If we had some anti speculator laws in place, possibly we could mitigate this kind of thing in some way.

of acres of ADC land. And I know you may have read some of the work that we've been trying to do around ADC and making that land more available for small farmers who are doing, engaged in sustainable farming practices. And that's a work in progress, we did manage to change the language of the statute so that they have to, ADC has to, support those who provide for local food consumption, not just privileging export production.

So I think I mean, it sounds like a small win seems like super obvious, but that was a big fight. And, and I think that access to land, for some farmers will follow from those changes, at least on Oahu, and in Kauai, and hopefully around some other ag parks that the Department of Ag has. So I want to say that that's one way in which beginning farmers can begin to access land, before they take the step of, you know, spending

$600,000 or, you know. We do have a cohort, a generation of farmers who need to be scaffolded in not risking everything all at once, but kind of learning their vocation and getting that under their belt, so to speak. So that I think it's really important that we address that scaffolding or how we're creating that pipeline. Because even if they do have access, then will they be able to take advantage of it fully?

So I think, you know, I hear actually you're both of you kind of coming at the the conversation around zoning from very similar perspective. And I appreciate that perspective. It's it's one that's informed by it sounds to me like very neighbor island contexts or because I think that what we see here on Oahu is the conversation around reducing permitting, and streamlining is framed by a gentleman farmer's kind of

perspective. So there's this like, it's not just a fear of gentleman farmers abusing these kinds of this loosening of restrictions, but it is the actuality of very wealthy speculators coming in, buying ag land, and building whatever they want, because there's so little enforcement from DVP and, and this is, you know, I represent a really strong ag community from Wahiawa are all the way out to North Shore Waialua, Mokleia.

It's very strong ag community and what they're angry about is the fact that the existing permitting the existing zoning restrictions and requirements are not being enforced. Right? So I think we have to have, and I liked what, you know, we talked about, you talked about a little bit in terms of reframing the language like, you know, squatting on one's own land does seem to be you know, misuse of

language. And, and I do think that, I think that when you say that the legislature is not keeping up with the conversation that's happening around folks who are minimalist, right, and trying to actually do the right thing, and trying to actually move farming in a direction that moves us away from corporate ag, I agree that the legislature, most of the folks in the legislature are not farmers, don't come from a farming

background. And even if they'd represent rural districts don't have that background and are not really involved in those really intense conversations. So I would say there's, so for you folks to understand, I, my district is huge, I represent the same number of people, so I have like the same number of votes, one vote, as all of my other colleagues do. But I, I also represent a lot of land, and they don't represent land. So they don't have direct

connection to these issues. And most of my colleagues are representing, if not urban communities, then suburban communities. So that's, that's the reality of the makeup, the power structure in the building where I work, in the House, that there are very few people who are representing rural interests, just by the nature of our census process and how we redistrict right, we do it on the basis of people not land.

And so the the number of voices, I just want you folks to understand that the number of voices representing rural interests is very small. And so that's why you don't hear these conversations happening, they're not happening a lot, I will say they are happening a bit. And I think that there are some ways in which we can facilitate kind of a broader education of the whole legislature. Sometimes we do that through bills. One of the ways that we do it in the legislature is through the

caucus structure. So I've actually been having a conversation with the Chair of the Environmental caucus, Nicole Lowen, about creating a subcommittee on sustainable agriculture and food systems, because I'm really passionate

about food systems. Within that caucus, so, and the caucus provides a way to educate legislators who might be interested in the topic, but like you said, like their understanding, and even my understanding that, you know, I'm, I'm not living on Hawaii Island, I'm not living in the

most rural parts of Maui. My understanding is shaped by my context, and it's limited, so but I think that those conversations, what I've seen in the Women's Caucus in the Keiki Caucus and the Environmental Caucus, is that these caucus structures, give us a context before a session starts to come together, identify key issues, and then get something hashed out like a a way to approach a problem through legislation that we all agree can be productive.

And I really think that you need to have that consensus building happen before the session starts because the people who hold the most power in the process are the Chairs. So if you have not convinced the Chairs, that there is some critical mass behind and some urgency behind addressing this problem, it will not get addressed. They will not hear those bills because they don't hear it, like for them it

doesn't resonate. You know they feel like this is is coming, I don't know where this is coming from, I don't know what constituency this serves. So, for me, it's all about doing the homework during the interim, doing that organizing during the interim. And I think that, that that's where we're starting to see some success, right, we've been working with the farmers

union. And I'm trying to do more work in the interim to build consensus, to get bills introduced by both the House and the Senate, and we are seeing some, like we had this past session, we got legislation on food hubs passed, we got legislation and healthy soils practices composting passed. So I think that we can continue to

build momentum. But I think that it's important to understand that like, you know, like, I think that the frameworks that you folks are coming from, and maybe a lot of farmers are those that are not well understood by people who are serving in the building. So I, so that's kind of like how I would address, you know, just problem solving moving forward. And then specifically, I think, the off the grid living, and the conversation around waste management and permitting

processes, and even ag theft. I think it is important to have farmers living on their land. Like for me, it's almost impossible to imagine farming without living on your land. I don't I don't see how that would even work. Because let's say you have I mean, there's not a lot of animal husbandry here. But let's say you have a ewe giving birth, like, and you don't live on the land. I don't know how that happens. You have to be there. So yeah, I agree. It's a

problem we have to solve. And I'm just trying to help you folks understand, like, the barriers, right, the the reluctance to just eliminate existing rules and laws. Because theyʻre, that the problem of property speculation is real, and it's even more intense on Oahu, I think. And that's what we, like we see ag land being bought up for resorts for like agritourism, where they're going to, on Mount Kaʻala, have zip

lines, right? So when we talk about like, should we ease the permitting on ag land so that they can have RVs there. So there's also this, that conversation on the North Shore, this conversation around RVs, that same thing that you want to permit, because it would enable, like people who are legitimately trying to do the right thing, they just want to be able to be on their land to farm. It's also already being exploited on Oahu, for the purposes of serving

tourists, right? So creating a different way in which tourists can be brought into this space. And those folks, those tourists are not working on the land, it's not even like WWOOFing it's like, it's just living in an RV on the ocean. So the kind of pushback we would get is, you know, that, and the, you know, it doesn't, the community is not seeing any benefit from that. So we'd have to have like a broader conversation about it, I'm open to the conversation, but I also

they are. And so if if we have an idea like that, just as an example is what's the best way for me with that or an ag producer with one of those, an idea like that, to get it recognized. Ultimately become something that that is passed as a as a law or zoning change. Because if I'm, like many of the ag producers we talked to are either not not involved in politics or have given up on it

in many cases. So, you know, what's, what would be the ways to do it as simply or easily as possible for them to get more involved with ideas they have, and try to move the ag producer agenda forward?

individual legislators. So but what I would say too, is that sometimes the process is short circuited, right, because a legislator might not sit on the Ag Committee. And legislators, especially in the House, tend to, like they will carry a bill for a constituent or they will get a bill drafted for a constituent or a group of constituents. But they might not have it, they they don't sit on that committee. They don't have

the expertise. And they definitely, because the legislature is a part time job. It's not every legislature, legislator that will use the interim to do the homework of like, making sure the bill is right, talking to all the different stakeholders, because if you don't do that work during the interim, your bill is going to die in session. Right? You're, it's guaranteed because you just haven't done the

homework. So it's not enough to go to your legislator and ask them to carry the bill, you also have to if you see that your legislator doesn't have the capacity to do the homework on that bill, you got to take it to the people you think are gonna object, you got to take it to the environmentalists, you know, on various islands, take it to the Sierra Club, take it to Earth Justice, because they all have legitimate concerns about, let's say, the waste being released into the ocean, if

processes are not properly, properly permitted. And have those hard conversations and document them like and and take their feedback as though it's serious and it matters. Because what I've seen is like advocates feel very strongly about something, which is great. And it's important to bring that passion into the process, but then to recognize that our laws are almost always the result of compromise. So you have to find the thing that you are willing to, like listening to the other

side. Going to the other side first like saying what are your objections? What would be the problems with this, and not just to the state legislature. At the county, this is really important too. Going to your Council members and saying, you know, this, I think is important. And these kinds of permanant things can happen at the Council level. So as long as you're also addressing, like bringing the State into the conversation, so

there's multiple layers. Like going to all of these stakeholders, and this is a lot of work for farmers, like they shouldn't have to do this work, which is why the Farmers Union is so important. And, you know, you folks have government relations, people working and they do this work, they go and they work with the different stakeholders. They've been really instrumental in like trying to overcome the, their resistance to food hubs, right, something that we now understand, great common sense,

you know, approach. There was a lot of resistance. This took years to get this legislation passed The legislation on composting? Years. And there's nothing more basic, you know, to understanding healthy soils than composting, right. So and it's been in process as long as I've been in office four years, that's, and some people will say like, "That's ridiculous, you know, like, I'm not willing to go down that path." Well, then, four years later, 10 years later, you're gonna be in the

same place you started. So I think that it's important to recognize like, number one, this process takes time it takes talking to other humans and understanding their perspectives. And it takes a willingness to compromise into and to hear, why they hold the positions that they hold, and then how you overcome them. Like we I'll give you an example with

the pesticide work. So it's always been really important to me, because I even in my work with HSTA, I fought really hard for the pesticide buffer zone. And when I came into office, the one of the first our bill died, because we had a bill about banning use of pesticides on DOE campuses with, which for me was basic, like, very straightforward, how are you gonna argue with that? And it died because the chair killed it, because the DOE said, "Oh, we don't use any RUPs on DOE

campuses. And I knew that to be a falsehood, and but the chair just killed it anyway, because they took the Dewey's word at face value. So after the session ended, I called my own community meeting, I asked the Board of Education, education to come, I call I asked the Superintendent to come. And we made it clear that, you know, they had

misrepresented the truth. And we had very angry community members, but also, you know, we were trying to problem solve, like, why is it that we can't do this from your perspective, and, you know, it was so compelling for the superintendent and the Chair of the Board of Education to be in that room, and to be confronted with the impact of, you know, having their staff lie to the legislature and lie to the community that they issued a memo that changed statewide policy that, you know, banned

the use of RUPs on on duty campuses, so, and then they, you know, after that kind of hollowed out, exemptions are hollowed out through exemptions a bit, but not bad. Um, so I just say that because it doesn't not all change happens at the legislature. You know, it can be like these conversations can start in the legislature. But ultimately, like, not all change happens through the law. So I just think that that's really important. For me, that was a

really important lesson. And to think about all the different agencies through which we can make change,

in 2022. And I absolutely understand about the commitment and longevity that's required. To stick it out with the you know, I like to say the wheels of government turn slowly. And so you have to be willing to crawl at that pace, and answer questions one at a time. It's absolutely a journey of 1000

miles. One of the things that I've done is I've made a point, pre-COVID, to go to the ag festivals and those sorts of events, where ag community people are gathering and introduce myself to the elected officials who make a point to come to that event, recognize them in the crowd, introduce myself, shake their hand, because then when I send them an email months down the road, I can remind them, hey, I met you at this festival. And I just wanted to let you know, there's

this problem. And it might help your email to get more heard, or get more traction to have that personal relationship. And if you continue that that relationship building as an activity over time, and if that individual continues to be elected, then you can develop a strong working relationship with with those individuals. I have a couple of nice, effective personal relationships with a couple of Maui County Council

members. Another thing that I've learned to do and I don't know if it's effective, but it feels good is when there's an interesting conversation going on on social media. I tag them. I absolutely will tag council members that I know are sympathetic to the con to the conversation or council members that I know are already working on that topic and might want some of the information some of the opinions that are being cast

in this conversation. I've been doing a lot of that this summer tagging candidates, because I feel that the candidates who are running for office want to know what the community is talking about whether the original question brought them in or not. I'm like, hey, you know Robin Knox for South Maui counsel see Robin and I've had some fabulous conversations about water quality. That's her background. She's been working in water

quality for 40 years. And so when there's a water conversation going on, and somebody's talking about, hey, Maui County has injection wells, they took it all the way to the Supreme Court to get permission to put their sewage in the ocean. I'll tag Robin, because I know this is something that she's very well versed on. And she's utilizing that skill in

her in her campaign platform. I don't always get responses when I tag elected officials on social media, but like I said, it feels good, because I feel like I'm at least letting them know about the conversation.

time to pressure candidates. And because, and, you know, I think the farmers union, it requires a certain type 501 C(4) designation, you can't be a C(3), you have to have a certain kind of organizational designation. But I do think that farmers need to, just like in the populace era, and in the progressive period, farmers organized, they had unions. So and that's where you're gonna get powers through collective

organizing. So, and I think it also creates a possibility of setting up a relationship with the elected, where you can make sure they understand your issues by sending out questionnaires. Like, honestly, that's the way that a lot of candidates learn about the needs, and really, the struggles of a lot of different groups of people is through the questionnaires that they have to answer. So prior to completing the questionnaire, they might not have had a really good

understanding of it. But I think that it's something that, you know, someone should consider doing that. With your organizing farmers, sending out questionnaires, and maybe you don't endorse candidates straightaway, maybe you just make their responses public. And that's just a civic exercise, right. But it's helpful one, because it creates a dialogue around the issues that you care about most. And, you know, I really would love to have that kind of, because it would make

my job easier, right? The would raise the level of education in the community and amongst the delegates and the delegates that are elected. So that we're not starting at such a low base, you know, and you don't have to convince the chairs about why different bills need to be heard. And there's already a sense like, yes, we all agree this is this, you know, critical issue. Let's talk about this as let's talk about this legislation, you know, so

with the with Sierra Club's. So you complete this questionnaire and Sierra Club decides if your values are in alignment, and they will endorse you or not endorse you. And I think that that process for candidates is. Okay, I see elected people as people you have to keep in check. Like, they follow the will of the people, and they really do they care about getting reelected. So that's the way you kind of remind them who elects them, you know, and and who they have to be held

accountable to. Because I think that as long as people who are elected are not being held accountable for rhetoric, then that you'll continue to hear lip service about agriculture and we're never going to really get to these really hard conversations, which is exactly what Georgiaʻs talking about. She's talking about like, these are the basic every day, like how do we do ag if we are not

living on our own land? It's a core question that legislators don't have to deal with because they're not held accountable to to their votes on on bills, because those bills are never heard, because and they're never even held accountable in questionnaires, like, how would you vote if this was brought before you? So that's what I'm saying what I'm saying and maybe like, again, I come from a teacher union organizing background. So I see things

through a particular lens. But I think the answer to this question is organizing. And I think I think Georgia agrees with me, because she's been in the building, like she understands how to lobby her legislators. And and I'm just saying, like, there's power in numbers, there's powers in collectivity.

our council members. Yeah, um, but pros and cons. And I really, I enjoy the activity of being at the state legislature and at the Capitol and talking to the elected representatives, it normally feels good. And the question I always start with, you know is, they say, "Well, what constituency does this serve?" And I'm like, "Hmm, well, I think all your constituents eat." End of story. All conversations about how to increase food production serve all constituents, 100% of them.

So it's an interesting process to me how upstream it is and how uphill you have to climb and how much explaining and educating have to do when people don't seem to totally confront the fact that they eat every day.

things are not connected. So I mean, even that, like reconnecting that is another piece of the struggle rate. So but what I was saying to like this, not just I'm not I'm not thinking just about the Farmers Union. It's also the coops. I think like Jim was saying, the coops are emerging as a force. And I think that as you see the food hubs get put in place, farmers will be less isolated. There'll be collective spaces where they can work and process

food. And I think that's going to contribute to collective organizing, because they have shared interests. So I'm hopeful about, I don't think it should be just situated in the Farmers Union. For me, that's a natural place to start. But also, it I think we're already starting to see it happening with the coops.

of two decades. He'd like to form a mushroom growers coop so it was a really cool station and you know, local boy style heʻs all over the map, but the intentions are there, the passion is there, and the skill base is there, so heʻs, you know, engaged with me as a farmer coach to help him bring structure and financial projections to his visions. So it felt like a really good collaboration this morning. Um, with regards to where food comes from, you know that that kind of takes us right into the

infrastructure discussion. Over the last few decades as Hawaii transitions away from plantation agriculture, agricultural infrastructure has been allowed to crumble. Here on Maui we lost the dairy we lost the egg farm. There are no more fish markets except for Whole Foods. There are no more butchers except for the one deployed meat packing house and cattle company is very

limited. On top of that the government has been working fabulously to improve and expand food safety regulations, including GAP, Good Agricultural Practices, or FSMA, Food Safety Modernization Act. The compounding result of crumbling infrastructure and improved safety food safety regulations is that many farmers and ranchers are limited by a lack of access to proper facilities to support their efforts to

increase local food supply. And so what steps can, you know that the food hubs is a huge step in that direction with regards to the need for increased local food aggregation and distribution opportunities. Some of these farmers are so small, that while they have something to contribute, it's not enough to be their own commercial operation. And so they need their production to go into a larger aggregation facility to then be distributed out with

others of its kind. And so that's that's something that I hear about a lot is "How can I collaborate?" even with non food products. I have a flower farmer who does non tropical flowers like petunias and such. And she wants to form a non tropical flower Coop, because they need to get enough of the same kind and color of flower at one place at one time to be able to, for example, do a wedding at one of

the larger resorts. And so bringing those ag crops together into large enough quantity to be utilized, even by the DOE working with the school garden network and the Farm to School program and getting enough of any one thing together to be able to serve the students across the state. I think the food hubs are going to be a huge solution to that to that. And and a great, great step in the

right direction. But what other kinds of steps is the legislature looking at to increase the availability of wash pack facilities, slaughter facilities, certified kitchen facilities and the like?

one time costs. They're not labor, they're not positions that they'll be paying for, for 20, 30, 40 years. That said like we didn't see a lot of infrastructure requests coming through the legislature, because almost all of the ones that came through got funded. So I had put one in for, we have never had since 1990s, there's been a report on the need for a native fish hatchery to support native fish ponds in Hawaii since 1990,

1992. We've never done it. So I put in a request to establish that at Waianae High School, and it was funded, because we had the money. But we people are not working with their legislators. So there's two avenues. One is the CIP. So that is essentially

like building money. Like if you're gonna build something, if it's if it's about infrastructure, you submit a CIP request and your legislator, both your representatives, and your Senator, have a certain number of CIP requests that they can get, they can submit and get

approved every session. And though I would recommend that people in that's like, the best possible route is having the farmers that want to, for example, have an aggregation facility, have them get together and go talk to whoever the representative is for that district and say this is a high need high interest, high need, high urgency. We need this and we are seeking state funding for this. So that's one possibility.

The other is GIA's. And so those are an I mean, I'm sure you know what this is, but just sort of for the audience that might not know, are there grants and aids that we provide for nonprofits

to do their work? And this would not necessarily be limited to physical infrastructure or building something this could, you know, support the work of a nonprofit like if, for example, the kind of work that you're doing, mentoring beginning farmers, not even a beginning farmers, but someone who wants to develop a coop, that can be financially supported by the state through the GIA structure through nonprofits. So those are two like immediate avenues that

are already available. And then you can also work with your legislator to submit a bill that calls for. It doesn't it can be a CIP bill, or it can be, you know, a separate bill that just has funding attached for the creation of this thing, which is

how we did the fish hatchery. We didn't use the CIP route, or the GIA route, we just I, we introduced a bill, Senator Shimabukuro introduced it and it just had funding attached for that particular facility to be built, and for training for the teachers who are going to run it. So be thinking about you want, design it, plan it, like keep, like, bring your legislator into this loop, and if the legislator thinks it's important for the community, then they can include it as part

of their package. And I think that's the other part of the lift, right, like helping your legislator understand why this is important. Why it should be that we only get in the house, we only get 20 bills. So maybe your senator is going to be a better person to introduce it, because they have an unlimited number of bills that they can introduce. And I think if you do something that statewide, like the Farmers Union did with the food hubs, it took a long time.

But now there's a, and it's just a pilot that's in place, but it's a pilot that's in place that has kind of established a framework for a statewide network of food hubs. So that's, I think, a more ambitious approach, but ultimately more fruitful, because it creates an understanding that we're going to we're not just going to do this in one particular district. We're we want to do this in all the areas where it makes sense. So I donʻt know if that's helpful.

election. That's my sense, my interpretation. You know, probably shared by nobody else. But that makes timing even more important in this election, election years. So I would not talk to anybody, before August 13. And then I would talk to, start talking to whoever made it

through the Primaries. I would talk to like, whoever you think is going to get elected, whoever you think will champion the bills, and then and also talk to the current elected, because it's part of our job, you know, like, we're still doing our job. We're still working for the people, even though we're also

running for office. So the bills that we're working on, like, if I don't get reelected, I'm handing them off to my, my successor, in the hopes that they will see that community need there and also champion those bills. So, but I would say that, like before the Primaries? Probably not great timing, but to approach them after the Primary and well before November, right? Because it takes a while. Number one, education takes time. And then let's say you have an idea, you

have to shop it out, right? Like I was talking, you got to shop it around, you gotta have meetings. And it sounds like dreary, kind of bureaucratic, mundane. But these conversations are really important. You do not want to be hearing a bill and have, you know, one of the key stakeholders say "No, we would never have agreed to that, because that's ludicrous because A, B and C." If you hear that conversation in a hearing that bill's dead, and will never it will come back to life that

session. So it's really important to do the work, like get all those things hammered out before the session starts. And then it can be introduced and then you can get other legislators to sign on and to support it. And I would definitely not take for granted that your legislator is going to do that work to get other legislators to support your

bill. You also need to be having conversations if you can, with at least the legislators on your island to understand like, this is something the whole delegation from our island should be moving because A, B, and C, you know, At the legislature, we kind of recognize, we defer to delegations, right. So if the Maui delegation says something is very important for their delegation, in our body in the House, we hear that, you know,

so. Okay. I mean, explain why, but, you know, so that's the thing that happens is organizing around neigh... Island delegations. So in terms of timing, that's what I would say, like, have everything, have the bill drafted, ready to go, ready to talk to electeds. I mean, have all that homework done, those conversations done before November. Because once they get into office, then there's a whole nother set of things that

there's like a scurry. There's a lot of upheaval in an election year getting ready for opening day and deciding, like, who's going to be on which committees and who's going to chair which committees and there's all this like, factional organizing, so you're not going to have your legislators attention is what I'm saying is that work is happening between August and November,

important. We all agree." that bill is going to fly through. Right. So because those people have gotten that consensus built at the back end, and they're coming in like just to tell the legislators "Yeah, we all agree, this is why we want to do this, and let's move forward together."

was fine. And we could ask questions. And turns out, you don't need to be in the building to make a difference.

process during session. And what I was going to add to your suggestions is if you do want to meet individually with one of your elected officials, try to do so in late January, or in the first two or three weeks of February. After that, it's basically too late to have an impact on the choices that your legislator is going to make

during that session. So if you are going to make the effort to meet with your Senator or meet with your house rep about a particular bill that's been introduced, and you want to make the effort to fly to the Capitol, or you want to meet with them virtually you want to do that right away in the first three or four weeks of the legislative session. Otherwise, just sit back and watch the show and chime in next January.

your legislator or person. But also, legislators have become very accustomed to virtual meetings, so I would say it's much more common for me now, to talk to constituents virtually, just because it's more efficient for them. There's kind of still a fear of COVID. And that happened all session, and legislators are super used to it. So and some of them prefer it, some of our legislators are older, you know, and it's less exhausting for them, you know, and doesn't, it keeps them safe.

So, something to consider, especially if you're a neighbor island.

idea of farmer wellness. And I'm reading some national articles yesterday in an in a farmer science journal card called "Farm Well," about the emotional support and the pressure release that farmer mentors, advisors and coaches can provide for farmers to give them the feedback, the focus and the ongoing motivation to stick with

it. And, and so I've been looking at the idea of, on a larger scale, could the State health and the state mental health folks cross over into agriculture, and recognize that at the International and also national level, we're starting to have a crisis in mental health with ag producers? I don't think we're having that here yet. But as I expand my, my perspective of what good mental health entails, I think I'm actually seeing it in the spouses of many of the farmers

that I'm working with. And so that's one of the things that the Seeds of Wellbeing project is is including that some of the other more national studies have not, which is that how do the stressors ripple effect into the families who may or may not be directly working on the farm?

And so how can the state legislature kind of maybe take some actions before we have a crisis here in Hawaii, to make sure that our producers are getting the check ins, the mental health check ins that they need, from people who are educated to watch for the signs and symptoms and to get them the support that they need before that crisis kind of hits Hawaii. So it's just kind of my, my final note to you.

a bill. And I don't think that it's something that the Department of Health is likely to take up, because they will see themselves as being very distinct in terms of their areas of responsibility, I think it's, and they wouldn't necessarily even understand how to address these sources of stress for farmers. I think that what I would like to do is to reconceptualize the Department of Ag. So right now, it's really

a regulatory agency. It's not supporting farmers, we need to shift the whole department so that not only are we like funding them so they can fill their positions. And we're making those positions, pay well enough so that the farmers can get those resources that they used to get - like, farmers used to be supported here - but also to expand our definition of support. So we're really talking about mentoring. We're really talking about mental health.

We're really talking about like, addressing the sources of stress that these farmers and their families are experiencing because without that kind of support, people are not going to stay in farming. You know, it's just like, it's the same kind of cycle with teachers. If, if they're not supported to reach that level of comfort and proficiency and success, then they won't stay. So I think that that's critical. And I, I'd be happy to work on something like

that with you. And just to kind of you understand, like, my larger mission is to shift the whole department, from regulatory to supportive, because I think that without that kind of shift, the Department of Ag is like, "That's not our job."

And they're doing good work, they could if they wanted to kind of take this up to, but I think what's more productive for the whole system is to address it on a statewide basis, and to really look at, like, how we can transform the Department of Ag. So it's not just regulatory, they're not just telling people when they broke the rules, but they're actually supporting farmers. They become a vehicle for investment. Right now. They're not even a vehicle for investment into our farmers in a

really systematic way. They have a grants program that it's, you know, like, it's not what we should be seeing, like all of these proposals that you're talking about, you know, the slaughterhouses, the aggregation, facilities, all of that should be part of the governor's budget from the Department of Ag, the Department of Ag should be saying this, "These are the ways in which we can support farmers." that they're not doing that. They're saying, we want to keep our departments small and

regulatory. So you need to have a governor who's ambitious about ag and his, he will appoint people who are ambitious about ag. So that's the first battle for me like the governor.

finally coming." And then the budget came out later that summer, and the HDOAʻs budget had actually been reduced. And it was so conflicting to the information that we'd received in the public speeches earlier that spring. I then got a lot of phone calls of people going, "Wow, they don't actually have our back. Do they were in this

on our own." And so it's really great to hear the recognition that the HDOA needs, shoring up, needs further funding, needs support, needs a trajection direction shift, you know, needs to be restored in a sense, the department itself.

And if you don't have... The legislature will never pass bills that the agency say like, oh, we can't do that, like, you know, if the energy has to come from the governor and the agencies, because the legislature will never pass something that the agencies won't accept, because we know that if we pass it, it'll just sit there. It'll never get implemented. It'll never, it'll just be a waste of time. And it'll just make people feel

worse. So I would say right now, there's nothing more important than the gubernatorial race and holding all of those candidates accountable to all of the rest rhetoric that they are, you know, using around ag, where's their plan? What is their plan for the Department of Ag? Nobody has asked that a candidate that not once. So we need to have that conversation and some people have offered vision. Vision is not plan. What is your plan? What bills would you pass

first? What kinds of persons would you, people would you appoint to the board of agriculture, the board of ADC, you know, like, all those things seem like they're invisible, and they don't matter, but they matter a lot. And and they they are like all of those decisions made by the governor, his appointments, his vision, his plan, his budget. That's why we don't have any movement. Because I love David Ige. He's a nice guy. And he helped public

education. But he is a fiscal conservative, and everything for him, like he's he's very old school, like it's been a it's been a hard conversation to get him to the place where he thinks that local food production is important. I really think that we have so much work to do. And I but I don't want it, the the reasons for our failures thus far to be mysterious. For me. It's very clear. Those agencies have to want to support agriculture, not just regulate. Support. Invest. Be a huge

engine. And we need a governor that's going to do that work. So that's what I would say to people is like, make that the most important question. So you say you support ag? What does that look like for you?

He's talked about the kinds of people who would appoint to the Board of Education. He has not talked about the kinds of people who would report, appoint to his department and his board of agriculture and ADC. Nothing. Crickets. So I love Kai, but still. There, the candidates are not being forced to do enough on this issue. And part of it is right now the weakness of the farmer organizing. Like there

are other, like ACLU. They had a forum, gubernatorial candidates came, they talked about their positions on, you know, prison reform, judicial reform, these kinds of issues. And nobody has forced the candidates to do anything around farm, farming, ag, aquaculture, anything.

for that? I think in part because each of these groups by themselves doesn't have that kind of confidence. Can we do that? Didn't know we can do that?

to land management. So I want to rewrite the law so that the leases that we award are specifically if you're going to be using state land, you will be producing food for local consumption, period, end of story. I think that that, it'll change things overnight. You know, all of this land is being used for seed crops, seed corn, primarily, and, and for export production. So those two things right now are like kind of top of mind for me, but I'm, I have a, you know, broad palette, I'm

open to a lot of things. So

I spent 10 years on the Big Island and there were a few certified kitchens that where it belong to the State that people could rent, and they were here, there and everywhere along the Hamakua coast. And it seems like a great way for people to be small kind entrepreneurial, taking their bananas and making banana bread and therefore having a higher price point. And it's something lacking on Maui, so I know that those can be

useful. Also the slaughterhouses conversation, there are quite a number of mobile slaughterhouse units on the Big Island, compliments of the work of CTAHR agent, Michael DuPonte, if I'm not mistaken. And those have been extremely successful for small livestock producers on the Big Island, and we are avidly awaiting a couple of those types of units here on Maui. And definitely the slaughterhouse issue chimes right in on the feral animal issue, they are

directly connected. So that's where you get something that you might call a lever issue, because it has the leverage to get backers from outside the ag community who are worried about feral animal and find a solution possibly, that works for a broader constituency.

So any closing thoughts from from each you just what what would you have to say to ag producers that are clearly stressed out by legislative issues that that they're having to deal with or that are not in place? Any any final thoughts? Amy?

ground. I think that's the most, regardless of the outcome like right, it took more than five years to get food hubs passed. More than five years to get the beginning farmers mentoring and support system passed. And so it's not that the gratification is going to be instant, but you will also find solidarity in organizing with others. And I think that that sometimes is more important for your wellbeing then the outcome of the legislative session, because you find your power by fighting

for what you want. So that's what I would say.

ulu tree analogy is perfect. You know, you're, you're working on building not just a business that can support you and your family today. But you're working on building an agricultural industry in Hawaii that doesn't exist today. And that's why it feels hard. It's big. We're all in this big project right now. There has never been this kind of small, diversified, successful agricultural industry in Hawaii before. We're leaving the days of plantation behind

and they're still fading. And we moved from plantation agriculture into tourism. And the transition from tourism into small scale, diversified agriculture is gonna be a rough one. But I believe that those two industries can support one another, mutually and naturally.

I think the upward trend of foodies coming traveling and people who do want to know where their food comes from and visitors who want to eat local and are willing to make the extra effort to experience the local agricultural industry that's on the rise. So look for those opportunities. Look for those moments when you can share with people about your what you're doing. Your story is important and people do want to know what you're doing and why. Keep the passion going.

system. If you, our listeners, have experiences with Hawaii agricultural ecosystems, from small holder farms to large even including multinational agricultural industrial companies, or anywhere in between, and you would like to share your story, please contact us. We welcome your voices and perspectives