Difference between revisions of "Template:Nhsc-v1-382"

Latest revision as of 00:17, 28 May 2006

sugar-cane lands, and (c) all public lands held under a certificate of occupation, homestead lease, right of purchase lease, or special homestead agreement..." DHHL and DLNR officials informed us that they are not aware of any maps showing lands available and designated as Home lands at the time the Act was passed or at the time the State of Hawaii assumed responsibility for the lands upon Statehood. According to DHHL this lack of accurate descriptions of available land is demonstrated in Table 69.

The exclusions of the Act are also factors that make it difficult to define the Home lands acreage because of the imprecise information concerning the lands under the exclusions at the time of the Act. According to DHHL, there were approximately 9,704 acres in forest reserve at the time of the Act. According to the cognizant Deputy Attorney General there may be approximately 14,197 acres of additional forest reserve land that were designated as such after the Act. And, approximately 44 of the 14,197 acres were not included in the Akinaka Study or the DHHL land inventory records, and another 466 acres were included in the Akinaka Study but not the DHHL land inventory.

The exclusion of public lands under sugar cane cultivation, according to DHHL, accounts for a "loss" of approximately 4,000 acres in the areas of Waimanalo and Lualalei on the island of Oahu, and Anahola-Kamalomalo on the island of Kauai. The identification of lands under sugar cane cultivation at the time of the Act was not documented. The process of identifying these lands involves a detailed review of sugar cane leases that were in effect when the Act was passed. DHHL has identified 809 acres that may have been improperly excluded from Home lands in the Anahola- Kamalomalo area, partly because of their questionable identification as sugar cane lands.

Other examples of discrepancies or problems relating to the land inventory are as follows:

1. The blue book maintained by DHHL included many adjustments of acreages made by DHHL personnel and the adjustments did not contain explanations of adjustments or make reference to supporting documents.

2. The Akinaka Study did not include an area known as South Point in Kamaoa-Puueo on the island of Hawaii. According to DHHL the excluded area consists of 699 acres.

3. The Humuula area on the island of Hawaii, according to the Akinaka Study, consists of 52,764 acres of Home lands while the DHHL blue book shows 52,781 acres. Further, a question has been raised as to whether this Home lands area should only be 49,100 acres. According to a Deputy Attorney General, State of Hawaii, the Commission only selected 49,100 acres in the required time period, 1921 through 1929.

4. Lands used for roads in some cases have been included in the DHHL blue book and in other cases the road acreages were excluded. We were unable to satisfy ourselves as to the rationale of the exclusions or inclusions and were unable to determine the amount of excluded road acreage.

5. Our limited comparison of tax maps with the DHHL blue book identified two parcels of land