Requesting The Department Of The Attorney General To Submit An Annual Report On Litigation Involving Native Hawaiian Traditional And Customary Rights And The States Public Trust Obligations Under Articles Xi And Xii Of The Hawaii State Constitution.
SCR156 is a Senate Concurrent Resolution requesting the Hawaii Department of the Attorney General to provide an annual report to the Legislature on litigation involving Native Hawaiian traditional and customary rights and the State’s public trust obligations under Articles XI and XII of the Hawaii State Constitution. The resolution frames the request around repeated court decisions involving water, public lands, conservation district permitting, and other natural resource disputes, and it asks the Attorney General to compile information on pending and completed cases, the legal issues raised, outcomes, and any corrective actions taken by agencies.
The report would be due each year no later than 20 days before the start of the Regular Session and would cover the preceding fiscal year. It would specifically assess whether agency actions complied with constitutional protections for Native Hawaiian practices and the State’s fiduciary duties over public trust resources, including lands, water, and other natural resources. The resolution also directs certified copies to the Attorney General and all principal state departments and agencies, signaling an interagency effort to improve awareness and compliance.
Because SCR156 is a concurrent resolution rather than a bill amending statutes, it does not directly change Hawaii law or create new regulatory duties. Instead, it requests an executive-branch reporting practice that would increase legislative oversight of litigation involving Native Hawaiian rights and public trust obligations. If implemented, it would affect the Department of the Attorney General and, indirectly, state agencies whose decisions are challenged in public trust, water, land, and cultural rights cases by requiring regular tracking, analysis, and reporting of those disputes.
The overall sentiment reflected in the resolution is strongly supportive of greater transparency, constitutional compliance, and institutional learning. The measure presents litigation history as evidence that state agencies have sometimes failed to fully meet their public trust and Native Hawaiian rights obligations, and it suggests that better reporting could reduce future legal errors and litigation risk. No committee testimony or votes are provided, so there is no recorded opposition or formal support in the available materials beyond the resolution’s own findings.
The main points of contention implied by the resolution concern the scope of the State’s constitutional duties and whether agencies have adequately protected Native Hawaiian traditional and customary rights, public trust water, and ceded lands. The cited cases show recurring disputes over water allocation, instream flow standards, land management, and procedural protections such as contested case hearings. The resolution itself does not argue against any particular agency action, but it reflects concern that agencies may have been too narrow in their legal analysis or insufficiently transparent, while Native Hawaiian communities and public interest advocates have borne the burden of repeated litigation to enforce constitutional protections.