RELATING TO HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS.
SB3307 revises the Public Land Trust Working Group created by Act 226 (2022) to expand its membership, clarify its duties, and require a more detailed review of both public land trust inventory data and financial reporting. The bill directs the working group, with support from independent third-party professionals, to examine how state and county agencies collect, report, and maintain information on ceded lands, encumbrances, and revenues derived from public land trust lands. It also requires the group to evaluate whether the existing public land trust information system and annual Act 178 accounting process are accurate, complete, and reliable.
The measure adds four reporting deadlines: an interim report on financial reporting by August 1, 2027; an interim report on the land inventory by December 1, 2027; a combined preliminary findings report by June 1, 2028; and a final report with proposed legislation by October 1, 2028. It also authorizes the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to provide administrative support to the working group in coordination with a third-party consultant. The bill is framed as a follow-up to prior legislation and as a response to concerns that existing self-reported data, inventory practices, and revenue accounting may be incomplete or unaudited.
In practical terms, SB3307 would amend Act 226 and affect the structure and work plan of the Public Land Trust Working Group, while leaving the underlying public land trust framework intact. It does not directly change the statutory formula for OHA’s share, but it is aimed at producing findings and proposed legislation that could influence future adjustments to the accounting, inventory, and distribution of public land trust income and proceeds. The bill also requires the governor and legislative leaders to adjust the working group’s membership shortly after enactment.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of stronger oversight, greater accuracy, and more complete accounting in order to fulfill the State’s trust obligations to Native Hawaiians. The measure is presented as a technical and administrative improvement, grounded in concerns that prior inventories and revenue reports have relied heavily on self-reporting and have not been independently audited or fully reconciled. No committee testimony or recorded votes are provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s stated purpose.
The main points of contention suggested by the bill are methodological rather than ideological: whether the public land trust information system is complete, whether parcel classifications and tax map key coverage are accurate, whether county and federal lands are fully captured, and whether current revenue reporting understates the amounts owed. The bill also highlights uncertainty about the effect of the current “rule of thumb” used to classify mixed parcels and the absence of a recent independent financial review. These issues appear to be the focus of the working group’s expanded mandate and the reason for involving outside consultants.
SB3307 would amend Act 226, Session Laws of Hawaii 2022, by expanding the Public Land Trust Working Group’s membership from a smaller executive/board-based body to include legislative appointees and a community member, and by assigning it specific investigative and reporting duties. It would not itself alter the statutory trust purposes, but it would require a deeper review of the public land trust inventory and Act 178 revenue accounting, potentially setting the stage for future legislation affecting OHA’s share, land inventory practices, and reporting obligations under chapter 10, Hawaii Revised Statutes, Act 54 (2011), and Act 178 (2006).
The overall sentiment in the bill is favorable toward Native Hawaiian trust accountability and toward strengthening the State’s administrative and financial oversight of public land trust lands. The measure reflects concern that existing systems may be incomplete or outdated and that independent review is needed to ensure compliance with constitutional and statutory trust duties. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes included, the broader political sentiment cannot be measured from the record provided, but the bill itself is written in a supportive, corrective tone.
The principal areas of contention are the accuracy and completeness of the public land trust inventory and the reliability of revenue accounting used to determine OHA’s pro rata share. The bill points to disputed practices such as self-reported agency data, the use of a “rule of thumb” for mixed ceded/nonceded parcels, missing tax map key numbers, and the exclusion of some federal or submerged lands from the system. It also raises the question of whether current reporting under Act 178 captures all relevant receipts, which could affect the amount owed to OHA. These concerns are attributed to the working group and the legislature’s findings, rather than to named opponents in the record provided.