Senate Bill 77 has worthy intentions: to see that public lands suitable for farming or raising livestock are made available for those purposes. Despite that, the bill’s one-size-fits-all approach to forcing the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) and Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDOA) into a mass land transfer is too broad, and the bill should be shelved.

Thousands of acres of land managed by DLNR are at stake. The land at issue is largely designated for grazing; however, certain sensitive areas may be better used for equally important purposes, such as natural forest restoration and habitat protection for Hawaii’s native species.

As SB 77 states, grazing land is productive land, and providing state-owned land for grazing and pasture maintenance is a worthy purpose — one encouraged by Hawaii’s Constitution, which states, “Public lands shall be used for the development of farm and home ownership on as widespread a basis as possible.”

But this legislation, which would force DLNR to give up oversight of all land designated for agriculture that is currently in use, lacks sufficient attention to the potential harm. And it creates an even more cumbersome process for returning land to “reforestation or other public purposes” — requiring DLNR to get approval from both its board and the HDOA board, and to give at least one year’s notice to the operations sited on state property before withdrawing it.

The DLNR opposes the measure, stating that much land that would be removed from its oversight is valuable for cultural reasons and to preserve natural resources, and that the parcels could be or are already managed for conservation purposes.

HDOA stayed neutral until this week — when on Wednesday, it joined DLNR to make a joint statement speaking out against a wholesale transfer, without specifically mentioning SB 77. In the release, HDOA Chair Sharon Hurd said a mandatory transfer would have “unintended consequences.”

Instead, the DLNR and HDOA chairs said, by working together, departments could craft a more fine-tuned agreement that would benefit both sides.

That’s indeed promising. Even so, concerns over how long it will take the departments to work out this win-win scenario are justified. In 2003, the Legislature passed Act 90, which required public lands DLNR had earmarked for agriculture to be transferred to and managed by the HDOA. Twenty years later, many observers are frustrated.

Since 2003, 238 parcels and about 19,400 acres have been transferred to HDOA, but the two agencies have not reached mutual agreement on other properties.

DLNR testified in opposition to SB 77 that it is interested in retaining or reviewing 68 general leases and revocable permits totaling 77,200 acres, most of them in five general leases that include “irreplaceable native forest, endangered species, and recreational values.”

Wednesday’s joint statement called the departments’ pledged new focus “Phase 2” of the Act 90 transfers, following a previous phase of farmland transfers — and promised more communication between the departments and more engagement with ranchers as this phase develops.

Another bill to help expedite the transfer of Act 90 pasture land keeps the mutual-agreement requirement. House Bill 14, introduced by Hawaii island Rep. David Tarnas, calls for HDOA and DLNR to collaborate, and for DLNR to continue supervision of restoration, conservation and public recreation. It also calls for extended grazing and ranching leases, to make lease renewals more accessible — and for a “funded action plan” before lands can be withdrawn from ag use for reforestation.

This bill has yet to garner testimony, but if legislation is to emerge to push transfers forward, it should include consultation and a cooperative approach between HDOA and DLNR.