Ep 33. Getting Political About Hawaii Ag with Senator Tim Richards

In this episode we speak with Senator Tim Richards from the island and County of Hawaiiʻs 4th district. We talk about how this Big Island ag producer became involved in local politics, what it is like at the State Senate, and how he approaches his role as one of the Stateʻs few politicians with local agriculture experience.

Brought to you by University of Hawaii College of Tropical Ag. and Human Resources, and the Seeds of Well-being (SOW) Project. This podcast is supported by the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network (FRSAN) grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture and Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Associated Links:

• Senator Tim Richards
• Jeff Melrose Hawaii Ag Land Use Study
• FDA Food Safety Modernization Act
• Hawaii Farmers Union United
• Hawaii Farm Bureau
• Hilo Ulu Co-op
• Hawaii Cattlemenʻs Council
• Hawaii Future Farmers of America

Find out more about us:

• Seeds Of Wellbeing website
• Seeds of Wellbeing Resource Hub
• All the SOW links

Transcript

Jim: 0:00

The views information or opinions expressed in this episode are solely those of individuals involved, and do not necessarily represent those of the University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, our funders, or any of the organizations affiliated with this project. Welcome to a Seeds of Wellbeing"Experts in the Field" podcast featuring people working in their fields of expertise to provide support for agriculture producers in Hawaii, in the 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. Here with Tim Richards. I've known Tim as my veterinarian for many years on the Big Island. I've known Tim, in the neighborhood or the local stores. I know him as Dr. Tim, I know him now is Senator from the fourth district to the Big Island. So welcome, Tim. Thank you. And I think we're going to launch into some questions and just wanted to see if there's any parameters there on questions that you're willing to answer and not willing to answer.

Tim Richards: 1:23

Ever since I've been elected, I've always said you can ask me any question at any time anywhere, no holds barred. And with that, it's served me well meaning people are always looking for answers, and you know, and doesn't matter what level. I was on County Councils that was County, but I helped with State and Federal issues. Now here at the State I'll help with County or Federal issues as well. I mean, we're all one trying to make it better, And so there is no questions that are off limits, ask anything. And so I'm very willing to try to answer anything.

Jim: 1:57

In this episode, we speak with Senator Tim Richards from the island of Hawaii's fourth district. We talk about how this Big Island ag producer became involved in local politics, what it's like at the State Senate and how he approaches his role as one of the state's few politicians with agriculture experience. No, thank you. I think it's great to have someone on our podcast that's involved in politics and actually has a background in Hawaii agriculture. So would you mind just sharing as a starter, would you mind sharing your journey as an ag producer, what you've been through and done and seen and and then how that turned into working in politics.

Tim Richards: 2:35

I was born and raised on the Big Island in District Four, Senate District Four, I was born in Kapaʻau, so up on the very northern tip of the Big Island. And my family background is agriculture, specifically cattle and sheep ranching. I went, I was in district four, northern tip of the Big Island, for my formative years growing up, went away to college, where I did my undergraduate graduate at Washington State, and I was fortunate enough to come home and get a job as a veterinarian in the mid 80s. And I have been in the greater Waimea area, practicing and ranching for the last almost 40 years. I came, I went away to school to become a vet to seek a skill set that we were needing for the island, for the state, for the industry, and I was fortunate enough to be able to bring that home. Throughout my last, like I said almost 40 years of practice and ranching, I have been very much involved with policy advisory. I served in leadership on National Kettlemans Beef Association. I was for a time involved with a Veterinary Medical Association. And then also the Academy of Veterinary Medicine, which is basically the cow doctors of the US. And I have served on a group called US Animal Health, which is advisory to its, all the state veterinarians and industry groups, and I've served on the board of directors of that group for 20 years now. Again, advising to USDA on policy. And so for the last probably 25 years I've been working on advising on policy. And then about seven years ago, local agriculture in the islands talked me into running for local politics. And my first response was "No." That's not a direction I thought I'd be taking my life. Anyway, long story short, they were persistent and I agreed to County Council, seemed to be able to move the needle there. And then opportunity for the Senate came up. And what I did find is I was successful, and I like being able to actually set policy as opposed to just advising on it. So here we are.

Jim: 5:01

Nice. Nice. Thanks for that. On the county council, can you, can you maybe note a few things that you did that you felt like move the needle?

Tim Richards: 5:09

Yeah. I chaired Agriculture, Water, Energy and Environmental Management. And it's not necessarily, you know, when elected to County Council, there was one crisis to the next. And we we dealt with hurricanes, flooding, volcano, we had civil issues with Mauna Kea, we had, we had just a lot of challenges one after another after another. And we also went through a time that was just tough financially. We were struggling through the pandemic. And so, going through all of that, trying to figure out how to get things done for the County and I always say we're gonna strike a balance between policy, public policy taking care of our people, and being able to afford that. And so that means we have to have a dynamic economy. And I had a little triad of decision making, always considered the economy, the environment, and the culture, and trying to make a decision keeping all of those three parameters in mind. That was challenging at time, depending on what situation we're looking towards. And we have a lot of challenges on the Big Island. I borrow a statement from former mayor Kim, he said, "One of the problems with the Big Island is it's big." And so geographically, you know, here on Oahu, I think there's something like 1700 people per square mile, I think we have 35 on the Big Island. And so if you look at the tax basis, that's a huge difference. In my district alone, district four Senate District, you can put three, three Oahus in Senate District four. Senate District three, you can put another three Oahus. And so putting in scale, that's one of our challenges. So being fiscally minded while we make decisions. That being said, you know, we've worked hard, are able to get some things done, we're able to get a lot of money for roads. And for me, when I look at agriculture, agriculture is multifaceted. Part of agriculture is transportation, part of agriculture is housing, and so working on those projects, to get things done. And we're able to get some of the stuff done, not enough, not near enough what I wanted to but I tell you, the global pandemic really put the clamps on a lot of things, and we lost a lot of momentum. And we're just retooling it again.

Jim: 7:49

And it's kind of an opportunity to rethink our priorities, right? And that triangle that you mentioned, but I think itʻs shaken everyone up a little about about what those priorities are and where they should be weighed, or weighted. So you're in session now, correct, as we speak. And so you have, and you're new to the Senate, and you're new to the state capitol, right, which is where you're speaking from today. So just can you give us a sense of some of the bills that are out there, I've heard some folks, actually on another podcast Amy Perruso called them lever bills. You know, things that will move the needle and, you know, in some significant way that other, other smaller, maybe not smaller but other bills, can then follow behind to help support and flesh out. So at the moment, are there what I'm now calling, or Amy was calling lever bills, are there any lever bills that you want us to be aware of or that that you're focused on at the moment?

Tim Richards: 8:49

Well, again, my vision, my focus, my passion is agriculture. And I'm always, I have a science background. I have my veterinary medicine doctorate, and I also have a degree in chemistry. And so I have an analytical mind, I have a mind of numbers, and so I have to understand "why" when we go forward. And so when you're talking about lever bills, I kind of take a step a little bit further back and say, "Okay, where do we want to go? What do we want to accomplish? What's the 50,000 foot look?" and the pandemic, we just talked about that, one of the things we learned going through the pandemic is, we are not secure when it comes to taking care of ourselves, specifically as a reference to food. Going through at the start of the pandemic on Big Island, one out of five kids and rough numbers and Iʻm a rough numbers so I can get scale, but we have about 200,000 people on Big Island, about 25% are 18 and younger. So about 50,000 people, and going into the pandemic, we were, one in five was food insecure. And the definition of that was, they may not get dinner tonight. That's a real uncomfortable number for me. At least 10,000 kids, we're not sure, were having dinner tonight. Into the pandemic, that number rose to one out of three. And we, we did a lot of good things on the Big Island as far as trying to feed the people, you know. I shout out to the government and government agencies, the <?> ones, The Food Basket, they worked hard. The hotels, they worked real hard, just keeping food in front of their people to try and take care of things. Our state imports 90% of the food, you know, we can argue about 95 or 90 or whatever, but let's use the number 90%. Rough numbers, based upon the national average of five pounds of food per person per day, and that's not that we eat five pounds but that's what gets put on the kitchen table before you start preparing it all. That means we are consuming over 7 million pounds of food a day in the state, not including tourists, you can tack on another 25 or 30% on that. So somewhere between nine and 10 million pounds of food a day. Big Island is a million pounds of food a day, which means 1000 pounds of food from 1000 farmers each and every day. And again, I need to put it in scale. So I have to understand if I want to know where we're going, I have to understand what the destination is. So in order to get there, we have to have good policy that was going to allow for that. See, ask about what what our big game changing policies right now, big one for me for agriculture. There's three things we need land access, and tenure, water access and tenure, and then value adding transportation getting that commodity to market. Those are the big things. Right now the big one is Act 90, which directed and was a law passed in 2003 to have the agricultural leases under DLNR moved to Department of Agriculture because we have two very different missions there. 20 years later, we still haven't done it all. And so that is a huge game changer because when we do that, that will mean that this state is truly serious about food production. And so there are bills that coming forth to support that, but that's one of the big ones. That for me is, you want to talk those leverage bills, that's one of those. And that's the support Act 90. Act 90 has been the law for 20 years, but this is Senate Bill 77. That is being stepped forward.

Jim: 13:10

And if Act 90 were passed, then would that transfer all the rest remaining lands into the control of Department of Ag? Is that how that would work?

Tim Richards: 13:21

Act 90 is passed. But there is this push-me pull-you going on between DLNR and DOA that DLNR has not transferred these lands, as they have been directed to, and there's been some conversations about why they've been holding back. The point is, if we're serious about food production, let's get after it and get this done.

Jim: 13:47

And I guess I will mention, and it's interesting to me, that it's passed. It's almost like going back to the judge after child support has been agreed upon and just forcing that child support payment, right? And I think Act 90 And the way you describe it is interesting because you know Seeds of Wellbeing project and the podcast, program and platform we're using, has talked to people throughout the ag community. And one thing we've consistently heard is a need for the things you just described, right? Access to land for a long term, access to water for long term, and I think ag parks is an interesting concept that I, we've heard from multiple people, and one would hear on a number of our podcasts is that ag parks are definitely a way to go to help achieve some of these goals that you've talked about about eating ourselves and and supporting small scale farmers, which is the majority of our ag production on, ag producers on the island. So I think my understanding is that if DLNR could freed it up to DOA than some of those ag parks could actually happen in ways that people would, have been talking about for a while but have not happened. Is that, do you think that's a fair statement?

Tim Richards: 15:04

Yeah, that's a fair statement. That's part of it. But it's also, you know, I talked about land access and land tenure. There are some leases coming up in Hilo and they're going in for lease extensions. And the initial premise was "No, you've had your 25 years, it's time to let the young guy come in and try." Well, that's not really supporting agriculture. There is plenty of land, that's not the issue. You have well established farmers, in this case floraculture, that are coming in, and this is now generational floriculture, why wouldn't we want to renew their leases, and let them help the young guy coming. Open up more land, there's plenty of land there, that's not the issue. And it's the easiest thing to do is kick off one guy and put it in somebody else, but we haven't solved anything. What we need to do is grow that industry by opening up more lands, and with that we start getting the economies of scale coming in, because then we'll get the support structures, tractor supplies, everything we need for farming, and we can go down the list, whether it be chemicals wherever the case may be

Jim: 16:13

Infrastructure, as infrastructure, as you said, yeah?

Tim Richards: 16:17

The economies of scales will play in and then there'll be more readily available, which will drop the cost of production, which will increase the profitability. We have to get that nucleus first. But if we have it, why would we change it? We can grow off of it, not cut it. And so that's why I've talked about tenure. Open up more land. I've always said this. Government, which is now part me, should be more concerned about the economy we generate from the agriculture economy rather than worrying about a lease payment on a piece of land. I mean, that's important and it puts the value there. But the economy that we generate, and the multiplicity of generating those dollars, that's where we should focus on.

Jim: 17:03

Right. And that's, I mean, as some folks have mentioned, to us, if the State is managing the land and those leases, then there's, it's, you know, best and, what's, what's the phrase, best?

Tim Richards: 17:16

highest best use?

Jim: 17:17

The highest best use, Thank you. Highest and best use is, can be, not so much about profitability. Right? And, and it can be about the community and enter your, your triangle, right, and going back to that image, right. Yeah, so that access to land is is certainly a big deal. I think zoning laws and allowing ag producers to live on their farmland is often a big deal. I know there's some, there were some temporary legislation on the Big Island when when we had a lot of lava, and people had no housing. And so some small scale tiny houses were allowed to be developed. I think some farmers and people affiliated with ag have said,"Wouldn't it be great if we could get some tiny house laws and legislation passed?" And maybe that's more of a County thing, right and less of a State thing?

Tim Richards: 18:07

Not exactly because I was working on that. And actually, I have been working on that. Yes, The zoning thing is County. But the tiny home deal revolves around the State when it comes to wastewater management. And with tiny homes, the way it is now, you have to have a new septic system for each tiny home. And so you know, pick a number$25,000 for a septic system? Very expensive for a tiny home. But what if we could do gang septic systems for a cluster of tiny homes? Our governor has a Kauhale program that is used quite successfully here on Oahu, where they have clusters, but theyʻre kindaʻ wastewater treatment plants. We don't have that on the big Island, I mean, a little bit but we're not really. And so right before the pandemic, I was working with one farmer to develop a cluster and I almost had Department of Health agreeing to it, then we hit the pandemic and everything stopped. Okay. Now, we're retooling once again, I've talked to the governor about this. I've talked to the Department of Health to consider this. And they are very open to the conversation. And if we need to pass legislation, I'll work on that. Governor has promised me he would sign the bill if we need it to go that far. But a lot of times, you know, working here in the Senate, it's not about just passing laws. It's about figuring out what laws we already have. And then figuring out how we can get the right people to have the right conversations so we get that understanding, and just get it done with what we have, because there's a lot of framework already there. We don't have to pass a new law all the time.

Jim: 19:50

Yeah, no good point. I mean I actually see some laws. I've been trying to be better about monitoring the political process and the bills that are up and, and giving testimony when I felt like it could be helpful. And so I've actually been watching some of these more recently. So I think there's a couple of things we're talking about, I saw a bill related to ag internships. So matching those existing ag producers with the young folks that want to do ag, in a mentorship kind of a role, where they actually, they both benefit from it. So use existing land to, to expand that. I saw there was a bill that just got through Ways and Means yesterday, I think, or the day before on that. So I see Albie Miles and and Chad Buck I've talked to for, related to the Seeds of Wellbeing podcast, and they've been very vocal and active about a food production and things getting to a crisis point where we don't really have a big plan, right? So I saw, I saw a bill was recently passed, or once again, went through Ways and Means I believe, that was approved for coming up with an ag plan for the islands and having people agree to it. I think, again, to your point of, if we have that we know what what we're driving towards. Right? And then we can have the pieces around that. So any thoughts on those?

Tim Richards: 21:09

Yeah, very much so. Again, we started this conversation by saying, I need to understand what we are trying to accomplish, why we are where we are, and where we want to go, which is a esentially what you are talking about, a general plan. Where do we want to go? And this was done back in, I think it was 2012. Jeff Melrose wrote a exhaustive analysis of what we are doing with agriculture on the Big Island. In fact he won some national awards on that. Then I think it was 2016 he did a state, and as it was basically a snapshot in time of where we are with our lands, with our ag, with our ag production. We have some rough bones, we can work off of that. I've talked to the proposed DOA chair, Sharon Hurd, and I said what we need is we need a master general plan for agriculture of where we want to go, what do we want to accomplish as a as a State. And right now, like I said, we're importing 90% of the food. There is plenty of market share, what we have to do is figure out how we can do it cost effectively. And that comes down to supporting agriculture. So when I support ag, I do not discriminate. Large scale, small scale, plant, animal, ornamental, it doesn't matter. We we need all the agriculture because they are symbiotic with each other. And the moment we start becoming elitist or exclusionary, we start dividing. And I don't want to do that. Because there is plenty of room and plenty need for for it all. So I don't care, when we talk about agriculture I want it all because we need it all. There's so much market share there. So let's get after it and get all of that. So that's why, you know again, promoting and going forward, we need it all. And we need it in scale. Because if someone's only producing a couple of 100 pounds a week of whatever commodity, that's fine, that's important, but that's not enough. And they will struggle if they're there just themselves. But if we have 50, or 100 of them, plus some big scale operations that help support them, it gets better and better for everybody. This is not a case where we're competing against each other. This is a case where we can cooperate with each other.

Jim: 23:38

I think a phrase, a phrase I've heard is coopetition, right, is what we need, not competition, right? We don't have to worry about that. And what I'm hearing you say, a long way to go before we need to tap the brakes for any of these things. So let's just keep our foot on the gas.

Tim Richards: 23:54

I used to the livestock, the cattle industry, as a little bit of a poster child. Back in the 80s were totally vertically integrated, we produced about 1/3 of the beef we consume in the State, and that was using all of our production. Because of economics and relatively cheap, or inexpensive energy, it made more sense to transport the cattle out of State, finish them, and bring the beef back in in the box. That was that economic model. Now we had seen a reawakening of forage finished beef. In this, in this day and age, we finished about 10,000 animals a year within our state. We're exporting 50 to 60,000. So even if we hold back 20% That means we have to double the capacity within our state. Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. We have to look at that and we can do it but it's going to take help and support from government to stand this up, make sure we have the good policy in place so we can get these things done. And I believe we can do it, but it's going to take initiative and investment. Itʻs very expensive to set up. This is where I think government can help get it set up, but then back out of it, and turn it over to industry and let industry, you know what, I mean get a, bond this thing so it pays the bill, but make sure it's at a low cost, because it's better for the community as a whole. And there's good reasons why I was telling you how there are, people have tried to vilify feed yards and all that, and don't really understand. I mean yeah, there's bad players in the feeding industry, but we have a feeding industry, because we, the society, had deemed they wanted a constant supply of beef, day in and day out, 365 days a year. And so that's where the industry came from was because the community wanted it. You know I've gone shopping, and in December you can buy raspberries that have been grown in South America. Why don't we do that? I mean, I understand that there's a desire for it but you know we want to talk about focusing on local food production, we're worried about carbon footprints and all that, Itʻs just, what's the carbon footprint of that little raspberry that came? And I'm concerned about that. Maybe we should just eat things that can grow during the time they can grow, and I think weʻd help ourselves out and focus in on production. And so less the carrot, but I puzzle on that one.

Jim: 26:45

Absolutely. And again, something we've heard when we've interviewed folks. So, let's talk about what Itʻs been like for you. You are an ag producer, you have a history in that. I imagine you're in the minority, and in the political circles that you're in now especially, have not having many ag producers as as your peers in the Senate or the House. So what's that transition been like about, you know, being a freshman senator in that transition from County Council and being so passionate about the ag agenda? And you know, what, what's that been like for you?

Tim Richards: 27:18

Well, I, I've always been passionate about agriculture. And like I said, for the last several decades have been working with and advising to and being a resource for elected officials, and taking a strong stance for agriculture. It's paradoxical for me. I think we have bad public policy revolving around agriculture, not because people are against agriculture, they just don't understand it. And so there's an education process that we have to do there. Back, shifting 1800 to 1900, roughly speaking, somewhere around 50% of the elected officials had agricultural ties. 1900 to 2000 then it dropped to about 2%. And today, it's probably approaching 1%. We just don't have the ties back to the land. And then we don't, and I don't fault people for this, it's just they don't understand it. Agriculture starts early, works late, has odors, has dust. And there are things that some people have trouble dealing with, we're talking about animal egg production. But this is all just very, very normal. This is normal part of food production. And I've been involved with animal health and well being, the welfare side if you want to call it that, for decades, and the high level of what we can do today, with the respect to the animals, and what we're Do you find that your role and a lot of your time is just spent accomplishing. I stand very proud of what I've seen in industries and where we've taken almost categorically across the board what we've done so very, very well. For us to get that better policy we have to educate the public. It's no different in these the House and Senate and County Council, people don't have the time. So there's a level of education and there's not a lot of us that have a background with working the land, experiencing the land, experiencing drought, and experiencing fire, experiencing market problems, and putting that all together. It doesn't jade us in agricultural, what it does is it gives us probably a little bit better appreciation of what's going on. But like I said, agriculture is hard. And people have asked me "Well, can't you pass laws so it'll mandate agriculture?" That's not how it works. People do agriculture ʻcause there's inherent drive within them to steward the land and make it productive, whatever the case may be. There's something kind of noble about feeding a society and that's why people do it. Years ago, and Jay Shidler, Shidler School of Business here, I was talking to him, and he was asking me about agriculture. And Jay told me, he said, after discussing agriculture like we have, he said, "So Tim, agriculture is your get rich, real, real slow plan, is that correct?" Yeah, it's an inherent thing. There's a high quality of life in agriculture, but it's hard work. And it's not quick return. And that's why when we talk about land tenure, someone says, "Well 10 years, that's a long time in agriculture." That's a blink of an eye. And at the County level they were proud because they're going to put out five year leases for some pastures. I said don't even waste people's time. Don't waste their time. You have to have at least 10 years with at least one renewal because if not, it doesn't make any sense. And so a lot of that is educating and doing the same thing here in, I did that at County Counsel and just talking to story. What I am, and I can say this almost categorically, I am, the Senator's I'm working with, very intelligent, very thoughtful. Life experiences? We all have different experiences. And I don't agree with all of them, but I do agree is that they are very thoughtful, and they are open minded when it comes to listening to these things. So I'm quite impressed with all my colleagues at the level of thoughtfulness they have when we on education? Is that a lot of what you see yourself doing with approach legislation your peers there? Yes. And weighing in on, you know, because I look at things from an agricultural lens. And one of the things Iʻve worked on, and again this isn't passing law, this is working with what we have now. One of the things, this goes back to the days of Clift Tsuji, Representative to the House, he was working on developing facilities at the ports, sea and air, to support agriculture. We're behind in that. So now with the new administration, new directors, I've been working with DOT, Ed Sniffen, he's designated, he hasn't been confirmed yet. But I said, you know, this is a big deal for agriculture. If you go to Texas, and go out in the country, all the roads are FM, and then there's a number. FM stands for Farm to Market. Okay, that kind of puts it right in front of your face, here on the Big Island, or excuse me, here on our state, the market is Oahu, that's where we got 80 plus percent of our population. Our big operations for potential ag production are going to be neighbor islands. Big Island, probably the biggest. We got to get that commodity to Oahu, however, that's going to be. I have a commitment that they're gonna be working on building those facilities at the ports. Now, it's not a one size fits all. It may be a warehouse here and may be shadecloth, there, maybe water access for livestock here. But they're committed to reviewing that and building that- again infrastructure - to get things going. And that's not a law, that's helping identify a challenge and working within the parameters of what we already have, and let's get things done. We want food security, okay, we're gonna have to take steps towards it, we have to start supporting. So again, land access and tenure, water access and tenure, and transportation. So that's all part of the food chain.

Jim: 34:13

And interesting. Transportation, and I wouldn't have thought of it initially, but transportation includes, in our cas,e ports, right? And facilities at ports or airports perhaps, or for that to actually be feasible and sustainable. It's a good point. Are there any laws related to that or bills that are up up for discussion related to the ports and access to that I didn't notice any of those so I was kind of curious.

Tim Richards: 34:40

So again, because when I first joined county council, there was one there and came to see me, and they said, you know, there's there's many ways to govern, that don't include always passing legislation. Sometimes you have to break down those silos. And if you get the right people having the right conversations, thereʻs stuff already in play. And so that's one of the things that I was able to do a County level is to figure out how we can connect the right people to have the right conversations. And here at the State, I'm trying to do the same thing, because we can get it done, we just have to figure out who has to talk to who. And just because we've never done it doesn't mean we can't do it, we just have to figure out how we're going to do it.

Jim: 35:23

Now, there's a thread of distrust of the government that we've encountered in a lot of our interviews, especially the ones that we do one on one in person with people. And in some cases, the ones they asked not to be recorded. So I think it's an interesting thread, you know, part of that is being maybe being so remote and having to be so self sufficient and, and stoic in a lot of ways and get it done ourselves being the middle of nowhere, essentially being so remote. But I think part of it is think is act production, right? It's, you have the ability to feed yourself, in some cases, clothe and shelter as well, with what you're growing. So you're pretty independent. Right? So I think so there may be a mindset that's more prevalent in the ag community about, "I don't really need the government, right, I can figure it out on my own." But so I guess this is all a lead up to, to asking you. Right, you're ready? There's a lead up to say, what do you think government's best role is for, I'd say, well in this case, for agriculture in particular? Is it to, as you mentioned a little bit earlier, is it to kind of help get bond funds help provide funds to get things up and running and started? And to be that kind of a support structure for that and then let go and let it loose? Or is it a State level versus a County

Tim Richards: 36:40

Youʻre gonna laugh at this, but probably the best level, right? So many things are so unique at a County level, because the State is so diverse. Not even just, you know, District Four like you mentioned, but let's even, there's such huge variety in so many ways, economically as well as culturally as well as elevation, right, and climate and weather issues you're dealing with. So I guess, for all those reasons, what what do you think the best role is of the State, the sSate government versus the County government? thing that government can do is get out of the way. And what I mean by that is, and I mentioned it before, help it stand up, be sure there's the structure there to manage it, and get out of the way. And, for instance, let's talk about FISMA, the federal food safety

Jim: 37:40

Modernization Act, yep.

Tim Richards: 37:41

Yep. Yeah. Okay, so it's there for good reason. The problem is for small production, it's backbreaking. So how do we do that? Well, this is where state government and county government can come in, help set up a program that that cooperatively, and I mean, in a true cooperative sense of ag co-op cooperative, help so everybody's complaint, have that thing stood up, probably help a little bit funding, but then get out of the way. Let the thing operate. Let the producers manage it. Have it set up, support it, but you keep out of the way. You want to talk about a slaughterhouse? Same deal. Help stand it up, get the, if we need to run some bonds to support that, let the operation pay for itself, and maybe some federal grants through USDA, whatever rural development, things along those lines, but let's let it stand up, get the production going, and then back out of it. Because government should be shouldn't be operating that. Government should help stand it up and get out of there. And we also have to look for synergy. Because I think there's a lot of potential synergy between agriculture, and especially in Hawaii Energy Development. We have a lot of potential hydroelectric possibility, especially on the Big Island. Well, we can use those after bays for irrigation water. We have the resources, but if we have to think more globally. Okay, I can do agriculture, and developing agricultural water is expensive, but if we tie it to energy production and so it becomes a byproduct, it becomes suddenly a lot more affordable, and starts seeing that synergy between agriculture and energy. Then we develop this whole nexus between we need the energy anyway for value added, and the value in agriculture is not growing the cow or growing the tomato. The value is what we do with it right after that before it gets to market. And so we can have that supply chain that has energy that in part comes from part of the agricultural entity itself, again we get the whole nexus developing. That's where I think we can really do something with our economy, we're creating jobs, we're becoming more food self reliant. But and this is where I see government's job is to get him to help stem this stuff up, get some of the regulation out of the way, allow it to come to fruition, and then turn over the reins.

Jim: 40:24

So what can you maybe share what you see is the difference between the role of the State though and the County? Like, does the State, is the State the larger umbrella that then takes pieces and lets the County make decisions at a local level? Is that what you're saying? Or tell me what you think about those two roles.

Tim Richards: 40:45

They are two very different. There's a ʻhome ruleʻ at the County level, but then there's State policy. And I think what we have to do is we have to do what we're doing right now, talk story a little bit more. Figure out, again, comes back to what we've mentioned earlier, for agriculture, let's just focus on agriculture we need a master plan, what are we going to do? Okay, so now we know what we're going to do, the next question is, how are we going to do it? And who are the players at what level? There's going to be County players, there's going to be State players, there's gonna be Federal players too. There's a lot of things from the Federal side, energy, transportation. We have the military here, there's a food security for the military, do they participate in this? Personally I think they should. There's a lot of things that I think we can work on. But we have to put that together. USDA has a lot of programs that we can tap into. I was working on a thing for Kohala, we lost the Kohala ditch. I've been working on getting funding to get that ditch back flowing, because we have that ditch back flowing then we have more irrigation capability which skyrockets our production capability in Kohala. But you know, get back to FISMA. In order to grow more crops, we have to be actually able to rinse them in potable water. under USDA there are programs to develop potable water, but not necessarily irrigation water. But if I develop irrigation water that will go into potable water that's allowable. So I have to tie those together. And again, it's working with County, State, Federal, and trying to figure out, you know, navigating the maze to figure out how to put these programs together. And that's where I think I am finding a way forward. And like I mentioned earlier, getting the right people to talk to the right people, or maybe asking the right questions, where someone goes, "Oh, there's that program," or something like that. So there's a lot of conversation, a lot of thinking about and trying to chart that that way forward. And so I don't think it's either or it's cohesive, all together.

Jim: 43:04

Okay. And it's, yeah, as always, much more complex than it might appear from the outside. So "What can we do?" I guess it's what I keep hearing people ask me and I asked myself is, what can we do to help support some of these initiatives that a lot of us feel are critical for us to be able to increase local food production and consumption? How can we help? And what do you suggest are ways that we can be involved?

Tim Richards: 43:35

Gotta get involved. And, you know, politics wasn't something I set out to do. Some people decide they're going to go in politics. And some people, kind of like me, end up in politics because what you've done through your professional life has led you to there to get things done. Years ago, I was in Washington, DC, and I was meeting with Senator Inouye. And it was a one on one. And he says, you know, "Tim, do you know why I got into politics?" "Senator, no." And he said "Let me tell you, after the war," it was World War Two, he says, "I was recovering in the VA hospital, pretty badly hurt, and trying to figure out what I was going to do with the rest of my life. I was sitting next to another guy, and he was pretty badly hurt as well. And we started a conversation." They were there like, I don't know, nine months or 10 months or maybe a year. And he says "Over that time, that guy says yeah, I'm gonna go into politics ʻcause maybe I can make a difference. And maybe if we have better policy, we won't end up in war like we came through." And so he said, "So that guy talked me into politics," and says, "You know who it was, it was Bob Dole." And so that's where Senator Inouye, and Senator Dole became very good friends. And it wasn't about legislating. It was figuring out how to have the right conversations, to get people to the table to make a difference. But people actually have to come to the table. So when you ask what can people do, get involved, not necessarily get elected or go, but participate. If there's a forum, if there's a meeting, express your opinion, contact your elected officials and give them your opinion. I, you know, I tell standard procedure in my offices has been, I will talk to everybody at least once. Because if they want to give me their opinion on something I may disagree, but I want to hear it. Because I need to hear, on that big spectrum that we talked about, I want to hear all sides. And I'll try to come up with a answer. You know, I tell people, we had one unanimous election in this nation, for President Washington. After that things started to change. And we're not supposed to all agree necessarily, but we're supposed to come up to a workable consensus and a direction for all of us that is better. And but we need input. And that's why I'll talk to people. Like I said, I may not agree with you, but I want to hear your opinion, because you may have a thread of something that I really need to hear. And I think that's true for everybody, in elected officials, we want to hear from people. And I develop relationships, and some of them are kind of weird, but I get a thread of input from someone that I value their opinion, and they may be way off different than how I'm thinking, but I want that opinion because it's kind of grounding for me. It helps me keep an open mind and open perspective. So engage, participate in some of these meetings and contact your legislators develop a relationship with them.

Jim: 47:01

So that brings me to think about the best use of time if we want to try to make a difference if we want to contact our legislators. Do you have a sense of if that's most effective through trying to give testimony, through emails, through letters ,through trying to go to the capitol and actually be present and and meet people in person? Or what do you think is, or actually I'm thinking I'm also a member of the Hawaii Farmers Union HFUU, Ulu Co-Op, right, all of whom have have political arms to them or function politically as well. So there's all these variables, and I'd love to use my time most efficiently and effectively, and I think as I think most of us would when we're trying to impact change, so any suggestions for best ways to approach or which of those

Tim Richards: 47:53

Any and all is the short answer, but to be avenues? efficient, when any of these trade organizations, leadership is important, and the relationships of that leadership are also very, very important because they are representing the collective voice. And on the Council level, I told people, I said you know, if I come to a community, you guys have get this thing sorted out, it's far easier for me to advocate for something if I have a collective voice coming out of the community. Now if I have four voices from four different groups that are adversarial against each other, nothing's gonna happen, because we're at each other at odds. But if we can come together with a collective voice, so participate in those meetings. You know, industry meetings, you're talking about the Ulu Cooperative, that's going great guns. And that was something that at a Council level I wanted to looked at. Yeah, itʻs State supported, but that is a true cooperative and there is some magic there. But again, that's leadership. There's leadership there that is strong, and Dana's done a great job with that. And so leadership is important. And then the contact of that leadership and the networks that are developed. That's how things happen because if you get the right people talking to the right people, so you can, you know, there are pathways forward, but you gotta go look for those pathways. And that's where the relationships come. You pick up the phone and sort something out. That like I said, Senator, Inouye and Dole, when they had an impasse they'd go have lunch and figure out what the way forward is, and then they could, could move things forward. So that's the way to get involved is pay attention to your leadership, because your leadership will help you get things forward and then be sure that the relationships are there with elected officials. But that doesn't happen during legislature during the legislature being open, it's too busy. What you have to do is this, this isn't a seasonal relationship. You are friends, and you have relationships that should be going year round because if they're not, you probably really don't have a relationship there.

Jim: 50:15

Yeah, I imagined this is one of the tougher times of year to get your attention with all the things going on.

Tim Richards: 50:20

A little tough.

Jim: 50:21

Yeah. So, I think, are there certain times of the year that you would suggest reaching out to establish that foundational relationship with your legislators?

Tim Richards: 50:32

Yeah, during State, for the State, it'd be somewhere between May and December. That's the time that legislature is not in session and there's time to do that building bridges. That's one of the things that I've always said, you know, I'm boots on the ground, I go look at things. And I develop and build those bridges with other legislators, at the County level, at the Federal level, build it with department heads. I go look at things that got a problem, I wanna go see it because I want to understand the problem. Again, I can't go someplace if I don't know where we're going and where we are right now, so I wanted to see it, understand that problem. And during the offseason, or if you want to call it, that's the time to develop those relationships. Go see some of this stuff. Go look at it. Waipio Valley had the flooding right around Christmas, I went down in there to go look at the problem. I know what the problem is, now we're trying to figure out how to fix it. But I've been there I've been in the loi, I've been in the rivers and looking at the problem. And then trying to make sure that we have the right people talking to the right people to help them out and get the thing fixed. Agriculture is everything. We're talking about vanilla, we're talking about cattle, we're talking about flowers, we're talking about ulu, we're talking about taro in its varied forms. And so there is not one voice, there are voices. But there are some pretty strong voices within our State. You have the Farm Bureau. You have the Cattlemens Council. You have HFUU Farmers Union, we have some very strong voices, and what's really important is when those guys get together and come up with a consensus of the direction we want to go. So that is really important. But education is also probably as important, I won't say more important. So how do we get into that? Back in our day of growing up, Hawaii we had somethin like 30 chapters of FFA. Back in the mid 2000 teens, or 2014, 2015, the number of chapters had dropped to something like five or six statewide. And then I was just informed this last year that the number is back up into the mid 20s or back up to 30 chapters. Thereʻs been a reawakening of FFA. And what happened with that? I was talking with a leader David Fuertas and he says"Tim," then Mayor, Billy Kenoi, I was chairing this Agriculture Advisory Commission and Mayor Kenoi got me a bunch of money and I was able to work with the FFA and get money to them so they can do something. So they could have a meeting. So they could send kids to meetings, whatever the case may be. Long story short, that helped break the inertia and start the reawakening and I guess we're back up to another 25 or 28 chapters again. Okay, that broke the inertia but now we have to support it. So we have to advocate for it, we have to find funding and that may come out of DOA, it may come out of USDA, it may come out of State budget, it may come out of discretionary funds, may come out of the Governor's office, may come out of the Mayor's office. My point is, multifaceted. And I think if everybody has skin in the game, then everybody wants the game to go. So I think we have to keep talking at all different levels and keep the lines of communication open.

Jim: 54:23

And were you, just just so I know, for the record were you part of Future Farmers of America were you an FFA card carrying member?

Tim Richards: 54:30

I wish I was> I admired and I was very envious

Jim: 54:33

We thank Senator Richards for taking time out of a very of the blue corduroy jacket. I always wanted one of those. But I feel good because we've been able to get them, and keep looking for funding for them, to expand that program. Because busy schedule while in session to share details of issues that will educate that next generation of farmers. And I tell people it's not just about farming. It teaches Robert's Rules. It teaches us management of boards. It teaches engagement it teaches public outreach. So it's not just about Agriculture, it's about developing better community members, and citizens going forward. So it's a lot more than just agriculture. The byproduct of course is ag, but I, we need to support things like that. related to Hawaii agriculture and from his perspective at the State Senate. You've also heard me speak about following a number of bills and giving testimony. That is because, in my opinion, and one that's been formed by dozens of conversations with the Hawaii ag producers and affiliates, it's important that we all get involved with local politics if we want to impact Hawaii agriculture. You can join an industry group like Hawaii Farmersʻ Union, or Hawaii Farm Bureau to receive notices of upcoming bills. And it's now quite easy to give testimony online. So please make time to monitor bills under review in the House and Senate and submit testimony either - for or against - if you feel strongly about them. By forging these relationships with your representatives and finding ways to educate you can help be part of the changes you want to see. Any final parting words of wisdom you want to share with our Hawaii ag producers out there?

Tim Richards: 56:17

Well, I always tell people. People say, you know, "Why do people do agriculture or how do they stay in it?" I say because people in agriculture are inherently optimistic, and you have to be because agriculture is so hard, that either you're optimistic or suicidal, and it's almost, there's not a spectrum there. And so people do agriculture, because they love it. And I am completely optimistic that we're going to really get this thing rolling. It's gonna to take a lot of work. So I am confident that we're gonna get it done and I look forward to getting it all done. And I just asked people, when you're asking about agriculture, keep your mind open, because I think we're poised to get some things done. It's a different climate right now. There's a desire to get it done and I think we have some people in leadership to actually help move the needle. So stay tuned.

Jim: 57:16

Excellent. Looking forward to it. Senator Richards, Dr. Tim or Tim, I'll call you all three. But thank you so much for your time today.

Tim Richards: 57:26

Thank you so much, and thanks for the invitation. Look forward to talkin story again sometimes.

Jim: 57:29

The intention of this podcast series is to create a safe space for respectful and inclusive dialogue with people from across a broad and diverse spectrum involved in growing and making accessible the food we share together. A diversity of voices, perspectives and experiences can serve to deepen mutual understanding, to spark creative problem solving, and provide insight into the complexities of our agricultural 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.