Sweetheart Deals Made Even Sweeter: The Ranch Corporations Behind the Public “Pasture” Lands Bill

As the 2020 Hawai‘i Legislature reconvenes over the next two weeks, word has it that HB2035 HD1, one of the “pasture” lands transfer bills, will be on the legislature’s shortlist of measures to pass in the expedited, limited-public-participation process it has planned for the remainder of this year’s session.

This measure will remove the Department of Land and Natural Resources’ oversight over the natural resources, cultural sites, public accessways, and critical habitat contained in and adjacent to the 100,000-plus acres of lands to be transferred to the Department of Agriculture.  The Department of Agriculture, meanwhile, has one staff person to oversee the comprehensive stewardship of these lands, and who has already testified that the Department’s support for this bill is simply because “the industry wants it.”

"Rather than being appreciative of the incredibly discounted rents they have been given for years, if not decades, ranches and their industry backers are only asking for more."

Despite the large amount of opposition and controversy arising from this bill, it has still made the shortlist of fast-track legislation to be passed this year, likely due to political pressure from the ranching industry.  But why does the industry want this bill so bad?  Why do private ranchers feel so entitled to the public lands they currently occupy, such that they want even less restrictions than the minimal conditions the DLNR requires of them to protect natural and cultural resources, our watersheds and water security, and public access?

Dollars per acre: sweetheart deals breed entitlement?

A review of the DLNR’s annual revocable permit renewal list for Hawai‘i Island reveals what could be the source of some of these ranchers’ sense of entitlement: years, in some cases decades, of continuous occupancy of thousands of acres of public land, for annual rent that amounts to no more than a few dollars per acre, if not less.  Examples of just some of the permits that could be transferred under HB2035 are summarized below. Note: 2019 annual revocable permit rents are generally higher than what these revocable permit holders have historically had to pay.

Kapāpala Ranch: Since at least 2010, has enjoyed the use of 8,215 acres of public lands, the equivalent of 6,223.5 football fields, for a 2019 annual rent of $3.10 an acre.
Walter Andrade: Since at least 2004, between 2 revocable permits, has enjoyed the use of 2,203 acres of public lands, the equivalent of 1,668 football fields, for a 2019 annual rent of less than $4.25 an acre. 
BK Livestock:  Since at least 1999, has enjoyed the use of 514 acres of public lands (389 football fields), for a 2019 annual rent of $5.58 an acre.
Randy Cabral: Since at least 1999, has enjoyed the use of 37 acres of public lands (28 football fields), for a 2019 annual rent of less than $13 an acre.
Jerry Egami: Since at least 2002, has enjoyed the use of 2,310 acres of public lands (1,750 football fields), for a 2019 annual rent of $3.65 an acre.
Kahua Ranch, Ltd.:  Since at least 2010, has enjoyed the use of 275 acres of public lands (208 football fields), for a 2019 annual rent of $14.05 an acre.
Kuahiwi Contractors, Inc.:  Since at least 2003, has enjoyed the use of 672 acres of public lands (509 football fields), for a 2019 annual rent of $5.50 an acre.
Parker Ranch, Inc.: Since at least 2000, has enjoyed the use of 4,380 acres of public lands (3,318.6 football fields), for a 2019 annual rent of $4.91 an acre.

These are just a few examples of the corporate entities that occupy tens of thousands of acres of public “pasture” lands, and who are using their political leverage to push through legislation to make their sweetheart deals even sweeter.  Rather than being appreciative of the incredibly discounted rents they have been given for years, if not decades, ranchers and their industry backers are only asking for more.  If anything, it appears that their years of discounted rents and unchallenged occupancy of public lands have led these entities to feel entitled to the vast benefits they have received from the public trust.

"The damage to watersheds and reefs by livestock grazing and agricultural development projects . . . will only jeopardize our islands’ self-sufficiency."

Exporting cattle does not help food security

It is likely that industry proponents will argue that this bill will promote the local production of beef to meet our islands’ "meat security" needs, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.  However, it bears repeating that the vast majority of cattle - 80% - raised in Hawai‘i is actually exported to the mainland, because they can command higher prices there.  The price differential is unlikely to change, and there is nothing in these bills that would ensure that beef raised on public land will be sold on the local market.  Exporting cattle does not help meet our local food security needs, and the damage to watersheds and reefs by livestock grazing and agricultural development projects on 100,000-plus acres of public lands removed from DLNR oversight (and exempted from state and county development and construction laws) will only jeopardize our islands’ self-sufficiency.

You can stop this public land giveaway to the overly entitled ranching industry from taking place.  Please spread the word/share this blog and contact Water and Land Committee Chair Kai Kahele and Agriculture and Environment Committee Chair Mike Gabbard, as well as the members of their respective committees (sample script below):

All Committee Members:

[email protected]
[email protected]
​
Individual Members:

Kai Kahele: [email protected], (808)586-6760
Gilbert Keith-Agaran: [email protected], (808)586-7344
Mike Gabbard: [email protected], (808)586-6830
Russell Ruderman: [email protected], (808)586-6890
Gil Riviere: [email protected], (808)586-7330
Clarence Nishihara: [email protected], (808)586-6970
Karl Rhoads: [email protected], (808)586-6130
Kurt Fevella: [email protected], (808)586-6360
Laura Thielen: [email protected] (808)587-8388

Sample scripts for testimony/e-mails/phone calls:

"Aloha (Senator/Committee),
I would like to express my strong opposition to HB2035, the "pasture" lands transfer bill, which the legislature appears intent on passing over the next few weeks.  Such a controversial measure should NOT be passed in light of the limited opportunity for public participation and dialogue over its final amended form.
Mahalo,
​(your name)"

"Dear (Senator/Committee),
I would like to express my strong opposition to HB2035, the "pasture" lands transfer bill, which the legislature appears intent on passing over the next few weeks.  There is nothing in this bill to require that ranchers actually contribute to our local food supply, rather than continue to sell 80 percent or more of their livestock to the mainland market.  There is nothing in this bill to protect our watersheds and protein-rich reefs that may be harmed by livestock grazing and agricultural construction projects without the DLNR's oversight.  Please do not pass this measure during the 2020 session.
Mahalo,
​(your name)"

"Dear (Senator/Committee),
I would like to express my strong opposition to HB2035, the "pasture" lands transfer bill, which the legislature appears intent on passing over the next few weeks.  Ranchers already pay just dollars an acre for the thousands and thousands of public lands they have occupied for years, if not decades.  By letting the Department of Agriculture grant them decades-long leases, without any public auction requirement or carefully tailored environmental protections, this measure would just give them even more leeway to ignore the public interest in the public lands they occupy.
Mahalo,
​(your name)"