for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands" was performed in 1972. The study (hereafter referred to as the Akinaka Study) was performed by Arthur Y. Akinaka, Ltd., Consulting Engineers, and James H. Dunn, former State Surveyor. The Akinaka Study included an overview of Home lands as well as identifying the obstacles to establishing accountability over the lands designated by the Act. There are some errors in the identification of acreage in the Akinaka Study, but, in our opinion, it represents the beat available starting point in identifying the lands for which the Commission is responsible as a trustee. We note, however, that DHHL has not attempted to explain the differences between the land acreage as reported in the Akinaka Study and the acreage included in the blue book.
The original Act set aside approximately 203,500 acres and the United States Congress added 564 acres and withdrew 272 acres during the years 1934 through 1952. In addition, there have been seven exchanges of lands approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The exchanges resulted in a net increase of 3,903 acres and an adjusted total of 207,695 acres as shown in Table 67.
A comparison of the Home lands acreage, as adjusted above, and as summarized in the Akinaka Study and in DHHL's fiscal year 1981 annual report is shown in Table 68. This table shows that there are differences in totals and in acreage by island. While there is only a 154-acre difference between total acreages of the Akinaka Study and the 1981 Annual Report, there are more significant differences in the island acreages, i.e., Hawaii 396 acres, Kauai 722 acres, Molokai 585 acres, and Oahu 176 acres. Although there have been no approved exchanges or disposals of Home lands since 1967, there are inconsistencies in the acreages reported in the DHHL annual reports aa shown below.
Annual Report HHL Acreage 1981 189,724 1980 190,000 1977 190,414 1976 189,875 1971 190,920
An understanding of the events which led to the passage of the Act is necessary to understand some of the problems associated with the land inventory. The proposals for the lands to be included were contradictory. The major resolution to amend land laws proposed that the highly developed sugar cane lands under Territory leases, which were to expire between 1917 and 1921, were not to be included as homestead lands but were to be continued for lease to the highest bidder. This would have retained the agricultural lands in the hands of the sugar interests. The original Hawaiian rehabilitation proposal, however, would have made these lands available for homesteading. A compromise was worked out between sponsors of the rehabilitation measure and the sugar interests whereby all acreage cultivated for sugar or held under special leases were to be excluded from Home lands, but 30 percent of the revenue derived from the leasing of sugar cane lands was earmarked as income for the rehabilitation program.
This compromise then resulted in the first obstacle to establishing accountability of all Home lands, designated as "available lands" under the Act. Section 203 of the Act set aside as "available lands" certain public lands, which accordinq to the Act totaled 203,500 acres, excluding "...(a) all lands within any forest reservations, (b) all cultivated