Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 11, Number 3, 1 March 1994 — Money and land top agenda at first legislative hearings [ARTICLE]

Money and land top agenda at first legislative hearings

by Patrick Johnston Bills dealing with ceded land revenues and kuleana land headed the list at the Feb. 7 hearing of the Legislature's House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs at the legislative tower. The committee, chaired by Dennis Arakaki. heard testimony on 13 bills covering subjects ranging from abandoned kuleana to ceded lands revenue due to OHA. • HB 2800. Relating to abandoned property. House Bill 2800 would add to legislation passed in 1987 requiring any kuleana lands with no heirs to be held in trust by OHA (see Ka Wai Ola, Jan. 1994 issue). It was created in response to a court ruling that the 1987 kuleana law could not apply retroactively. If a kuleana owner died before the passage of the law. OHA could not elaim the land. The new bill states that all kuleana land acquired by escheat before July 1. 1977 escheat (revert) to the Office of Ha,waiian Affairs unless the individual claiming ownership proves he

or she is the legal title holder. (Editor's note: The intent of the bill is not to undo any past quiet title actions or compete with Hawaiians who have legitimate claims to kuleana lands.) Trustee A. Frenchy DeSoto spoke for OHA in favor of the bill, saying OHA is trying to reclaim kuleana lands for Hawaiians in cases where the lands are in the hands of people they don't belong to. Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation staff attorney Carl Christensen gave testimony in favor of the bill but asked that certain language be clarified. NHLC proposed that any person seeking to acquire kuleana land by escheat identify "by name" the particular person whose death resulted in the escheat. Without this clarifiction, NHLC testimony went on, "it could be argued that identifīcation as simply 'heirs of the original grantee' of the kuleana would be sufficient to eomply with the requirements of the section." The Department of Land and Natural Resources opposed the bill saying it "would cause severe disruption

to current land ownership and tenure and to rights of security interest holders." Ka Lāhui Hawai'i leader Mililani Trask also opposed the bill, arguing that OHA should try to spend more time looking for the original owner of the kuleana plot and that problems would result if an owner was found after OHA took control of the land. OHA's land officer Linda Delaney responded that OHA would return any land it had acquired through the law if an heir was found. Status: passed, with amendments, to the House Water and Land Use Planning committee. In its new form the phrase "kuleana acquired by escheat" is replaced by "kuleana land based on an escheat." This amendment will protect any title ratified by the courts prior to the enactment of the bill. OHA would also be required to conduct a thorough genealogical and title search for living heirs of kuleana lands that had escheated to the agency. After doing so, OHA would hold the lands in tmst for two years during whieh time an

heir or successor could eome forward and make a elaim. If no elaim is made, OHA would retaifTtitle of the land. Amendments proposed by the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation were also included. • HB 2798. Payments of revenues due to OHA and revenue information. House Bill 2798 would require that state departments receiving revenues from ceded lands pay OHA its 20 percent share on a monthly basis - not quarterly, semi- annually, or annually - or pay it plus interest on the amount due. The bill also requires that departments make semi-annual revenue estimates for the next six years. Any disputes with OHA would be resolved through arbitration. OHA legislative lobbying team chair Abraham Aiona spoke in support of the legislation saying passage would "ensure that revenue due OHA from the state is paid in a timely manner and that OHA receives reasonable revenue information on current and fumre revenues." Aiona added that a number of departments had not reported revenue information while others paid only on a quarterly or semi-annual basis and this made it difficult for OHA to plan and fund programs.

DLNR division chief Mason Young spoke against the bill saying there was nothing wrong with his department's accounting methods and that they didn't have the staff to handle the requirements set down in the bill. Department of Budget and Finance director Eugene Imai submitted testimony arguing that the legislation created eonflicts with present state payment procedures and, if passed, would require that amendments be made to present statutes. Imai was also concemed that departments might not be able to account and generate payments on a monthly basis and project future revenue. He also said there were some flaws in the way in whieh the interest revenues were to be determined. Status: passed, with amendments, to Judiciary Committee. The demand for monthly payments was dropped and replaced by payments that would take plaee a month after state departments receive their revenue, whieh is usually on a quarterly basis. Interest rate payments would be set so as not to conflict with the present state system.