Template:Nhsc-v1-438

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