Reid Ginoza at 21:18, 20 June 2006

2006-06-20T21:18:59Z

Jennifer Wada at 11:36, 11 March 2006

2006-03-11T11:36:30Z

New page

been charged with the receipt and
administration of the public land
t r u s t established by this section of
the Admission Act. 17/ However, a
1979 audit of the DLNR indicated that
the trust has not been administered in
conformance with the Admission Act.
18/ The DLNR has failed to properly
dispose of the revenue and income from
the public land t r u s t . Hawaii Revised
S t a t u t e s , section 171-18, the
implementation l e g i s l a t i o n for section
5(f) of the Admission Act, established
a public land t r u s t fund for the
r e c e i p t of funds derived from the
s a l e , lease, or other disposition of
ceded lands. 19/ Hawaii Revised
S t a t u t e s section 171-19, created a
separate fund, the special land and
development fund, for a l l proceeds
from the disposition of non-ceded
lands (lands which the State may have
acquired by condemnation, purchase or
other means). 20/ This second fund
was established for the maintenance
and development of a l l public lands.
These two funds were intended to serve
d i f f e r e n t purposes. Monies deposited
in the public land t r u s t fund were to
come from the disposition of ceded
lands and were to be expended in a
manner consistent with the d i r e c t i o ns
of section 5(f) of the Admission Act.
Monies deposited in the special land
and development fund were to come from
the disposition of non-ceded lands
(lands not subject to the section 5(f)
t r u s t ) and were to be expended to
maintain and develop a l l public
lands.
However, since statehood, DLNR has
f a i l e d to make this d i s t i n c t i on
between the two funds and instead has
deposited monies from the leases of
a l l public lands into the public land
t r u s t fund and monies from the sale of
a l l public lands into .the special land
ana development fund. 21/ Thus, in
depositing money in the two funds, the
d i s t i n c t i o n between ceded lands (lands
subject to the section 5(f) t r u s t ) and
non-ceded lands (lands not subject to
the 5(f) t r u s t ) has been ignored;
instead, monies have been deposited on
the basis of a lease/sale dichotomy.
The reason given for the f a i l u r e to
conform to the mandate of § 5(f) of
the Admission Act is even more
d i s t u r b i n g . No inventory of public
lands exists and the DLNR has been
unable to distinguish between ceded
and non-ceded public lands. 22/ A
recent a r t i c l e on Hawaii's ceded lands
observed that:
In fact, between statehood and
1979, no attempt had been made
by the Department to compile a
comprehensive inventory of the
s t a t e ' s public lands, much less
one distinguishing between i ts
ceded and non-ceded portions.
Notwithstanding the d i f f i c u l ty
of assemblinq such an invent'"y
given the deficiencies in
e x i s t i n g records, it is s t i ll
curious, in light of the
requirements of the section
5 ( f ) , that such an inventory
does not exist at the present
time. 23/
That same a r t i c l e concluded that the
absence of an inventory and the
confusion of funds have impeded the
administration of the section 5(f)
public t r u s t in several ways. 24/
F i r s t , because the DLNR cannot use the
ceded/non-ceded d i s t i n c t i o n in
recording r e c e i p t s , there is no way of
knowing the accuracy of i t s figures
for each fund or of determining which
monies belong to wh:ch fund. Since
most of the income from public lands
is derived from ceded lands, this
f a i l u r e to distinguish ceded and
non-ceded lands has probably worked to
the disadvantage of the public land
t r u s t fund. Secondly, the wrongful
deposits may have resulted in
expenditures of public t r u s t monies
for the purposes of the special land
and development fund and vice versa.
However, it is impossible to know the
extent to which the expenditures may
have been wrongfully applied until a
438

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 been charged with the receipt and
 administration of the public land
-t r u s t established by this section of
+trust established by this section of
-the Admission Act. 17/ However, a
+the Admission Act. <u>17</u>/ However, a
 audit of the DLNR indicated that
 the trust has not been administered in
 conformance with the Admission Act.
-/ The DLNR has failed to properly
+<u>18</u>/ The DLNR has failed to properly
 dispose of the revenue and income from
-the public land t r u s t . Hawaii Revised
+the public land trust. Hawaii Revised
-S t a t u t e s , section 171-18, the
+Statutes, section 171-18, the
-implementation l e g i s l a t i o n for section
+implementation legislation for section
 (f) of the Admission Act, established
-a public land t r u s t fund for the
+a public land trust fund for the
-r e c e i p t of funds derived from the
+receipt of funds derived from the
-s a l e , lease, or other disposition of
+sale, lease, or other disposition of
-ceded lands. 19/ Hawaii Revised
+ceded lands. <u>19</u>/ Hawaii Revised
-S t a t u t e s section 171-19, created a
+Statutes section 171-19, created a
 separate fund, the special land and
-development fund, for a l l proceeds
+development fund, for all proceeds
 from the disposition of non-ceded
 lands (lands which the State may have
 acquired by condemnation, purchase or
-other means). 20/ This second fund
+other means). <u>20</u>/ This second fund
 was established for the maintenance
-and development of a l l public lands.
+and development of all public lands.
 These two funds were intended to serve
-d i f f e r e n t purposes. Monies deposited
+different purposes. Monies deposited
-in the public land t r u s t fund were to
+in the public land trust fund were to
 come from the disposition of ceded
 lands and were to be expended in a
-manner consistent with the d i r e c t i o ns
+manner consistent with the directions
 of section 5(f) of the Admission Act.
 Monies deposited in the special land
@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 the disposition of non-ceded lands
 (lands not subject to the section 5(f)
-t r u s t ) and were to be expended to
+trust) and were to be expended to
-maintain and develop a l l public
+maintain and develop all public
 lands.
 However, since statehood, DLNR has
-f a i l e d to make this d i s t i n c t i on
+failed to make this distinction
 between the two funds and instead has
-deposited monies from the leases of
+deposited monies from the <u>leases</u> of
-a l l public lands into the public land
+all public lands into the public land
-t r u s t fund and monies from the sale of
+trust fund and monies from the <u>sale</u> of
-a l l public lands into .the special land
+all public lands into the special land
 ana development fund. 21/ Thus, in
 depositing money in the two funds, the
-d i s t i n c t i o n between ceded lands (lands
+distinction between ceded lands (lands
-subject to the section 5(f) t r u s t ) and
+subject to the section 5(f) trust) and
 non-ceded lands (lands not subject to
-the 5(f) t r u s t ) has been ignored;
+the 5(f) trust) has been ignored;
 instead, monies have been deposited on
 the basis of a lease/sale dichotomy.
-The reason given for the f a i l u r e to
 conform to the mandate of § 5(f) of
 the Admission Act is even more
-d i s t u r b i n g . No inventory of public
+disturbing. No inventory of public
 lands exists and the DLNR has been
 unable to distinguish between ceded
-and non-ceded public lands. 22/ A
+and non-ceded public lands. <u>22</u>/ A
-recent a r t i c l e on Hawaii's ceded lands
+recent article on Hawaii's ceded lands
 observed that:
-In fact, between statehood and
+: In fact, between statehood and 1979, no attempt had been made by the Department to compile a comprehensive inventory of the state's public lands, much less one distinguishing between its ceded and non-ceded portions. Notwithstanding the difficulty of assembling such an inventory given the deficiencies in existing records, it is still curious, in light of the requirements of the section 5( f ) , that such an inventory does not exist at the present time. <u>23</U>/
-, no attempt had been made
+That same article concluded that the
 absence of an inventory and the
 confusion of funds have impeded the
 administration of the section 5(f)
-public t r u s t in several ways. 24/
+public trust in several ways. <u>24</u>/
-F i r s t , because the DLNR cannot use the
+First, because the DLNR cannot use the
-ceded/non-ceded d i s t i n c t i o n in
+ceded/non-ceded distinction in
-recording r e c e i p t s , there is no way of
+recording receipts, there is no way of
-knowing the accuracy of i t s figures
+knowing the accuracy of its figures
 for each fund or of determining which
-monies belong to wh:ch fund. Since
+monies belong to which fund. Since
 most of the income from public lands
 is derived from ceded lands, this
-f a i l u r e to distinguish ceded and
+failure to distinguish ceded and
 non-ceded lands has probably worked to
 the disadvantage of the public land
-t r u s t fund. Secondly, the wrongful
+trust fund. Secondly, the wrongful
 deposits may have resulted in
-expenditures of public t r u s t monies
+expenditures of public trust monies
 for the purposes of the special land
 and development fund and vice versa.
@@ Line 103: / Line 90: @@
 extent to which the expenditures may
 have been wrongfully applied until a
+{{p|438}}

Template:Nhsc-v1-438 - Revision history

Reid Ginoza at 21:18, 20 June 2006

Jennifer Wada at 11:36, 11 March 2006