Disagreements over amendments to the state endangered species law were exacer bated early on, when Representative Terry Nui Yoshinaga performed a legislative sleight of hand that, while not unprec edented, upset many environmentalists and even other legislators.
The changes effected by House Bill 1292 actually were contained at the start of the legislative session in House Bill 1214. H.B. 1292 was viewed by all par ties as a rather in nocuous measure, relating to cultiva tion of some endan gered plants, that simply restated a bill that passed the Legislature last ses sion but which was vetoed by the governor because of insuper able technical problems.
On February 26, Yoshinaga had sched uled a meeting of her committee to hear testimony on H.B. 1292. Because the bill was not controversial, few people showed up to testify. At the hearing, however, Yoshinaga gutted HB 1292 and inserted the language of the far more controversial H.B. 1214, which became H.B. 1292, House Draft 1.
Representative Cynthia Thielen de scribed her objections to this action in a letter to Environment Hawai’i. H.B. 1292, H.D. I, “guts the endangered species law by allowing developers to enter into land use agreements which allow the incidental tak ing (destruction) of endangered and threat ened species. This occurs under the bill without public oversight or any safeguards.”
“This amendment,” Thielen continued, “is highly controversial and strongly op posed by environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, Hawai’i Chapter. By not dis closing this ‘bill switch’ in the public hear ing notice, this committee shut out public participation.
“Even worse, Sec tion 2 of the amended bill abso lutely shuts out the public: ‘All negotia tions … between a landowner and the department [of land and natural re sources] shall remain confidential…’ That kind of secrecy is outrageous…
“What happened in the House Energy and Environmental Protection Committee gave open government a black eye and can hurt our endangered and threatened spe cies.”
On March 8, the Hawai’i Audubon So ciety called a news conference, at which it and other environmental groups expressed their concerns over House Draft I of House Bill 1292. After the news conference, Phil Lee, legislative aide to Yoshinaga, accused the groups, including the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, of failing to note their ob jections to the bill at the time it was heard, on February 26.
Lee’s comments prompted Marjorie Ziegler, resource analyst with SCLDF, to respond. In a letter dated March 10, Ziegler recapped the events leading up to Lee’s comments; then noted: “For the record, HB 1292, as introduced, had nothing to do with incidental take or any other substan tive amendments to Chapter 195D. The original bill required the Department of Land and Natural Resources to adopt rules to authorize limited possession, cultivation, and sale of some endangered plants. (The Legislature passed a similar version of this bill last session, however, the governor ve toed it at the request of DLNR and others, because it inadvertently deleted language in the existing HRS Chapter 195D.)
“We did not testify at the February 26 hearing on HB 1292 because we support the cultivation and sale of some listed plants, and there appeared to be enough support to justify passing the bill out of committee. Then, a week later at the decision-making meeting for HB 1292 (where no public testimony could be given or received), the House Committee on Energy and Envi ronmental Protection added incidental take language to the bill.
“As you know, it is difficult enough for the public to participate in the legislative process, and it is even more so when changes are made to bills after public hearings are held by the subject committees. Further more, we believe it is bad policy and prac tice to use existing bills as vehicles for sub stantively different provisions and amendments to law… Adding new and unrelated provisions to an existing (and relatively well-known bill) at the decision-making meeting also discourages citizens’ participation in the legislative process. We hope the committee avoids this practice in the future.”
By the way, although the original version of House Bill 1292 was eliminated in the substitution, the Legislature did approve the companion Senate bill (S.B. 175). If the governor signs it, the way will be clear for the Department of Land and Natural Re sources to adopt rules allowing the cultiva tion and sale of certain threatened and endangered plant species.
Volume 7, Number 12 June 1997
Leave a Reply