February 29, 2016

Aloha mai kkou, my name is Lii Nhiwa and I would like to speak in opposition of House Bill 2046. I do not
agree that the adjutant general shall have charge of all property of the State leased to the United States Army as
prescribed for in this proposed bill. Many of these leased lands are conservation areas that are safely guarded by
strict policies and State laws that maintain its natural and cultural integrity under the law. I do not believe that it is in
the best interest of the State to place the responsibility with the Army and see this action as disingenuous and
entirely irresponsible.
The Hawaii State Constitution under Article XII 7 allows for the protection of native Hawaiian traditional and
customary practices, as recently seen with the Maunakea case. Many of which are maintained on these lands, like
Phakuloa on Hawaii Island or in Kneohe on the island of Oahu. Allowing the US Army to govern these areas
would put our native Hawaiian rights in jeopardy since Hawaii State law could be neglected. The State of Hawaii
has subdivisions like the Land Use Commission who is charged with maintaining the natural and cultural health of
such areas as mandated by law. Relegation of responsibility to the US Army would threaten the natural and cultural
health of these lands. Just as history points to areas like Kahoolawe where responsibility of US Army did not result
in responsible actions on their part.
In Hawaiian culture, natural and cultural resources are one and the same, according to the Maunakea Science
Reserve Master Plan. The Department of Land and Natural Resources burdens the responsibility of protecting the
public trust and the customary and traditional rights and practices of native Hawaiians. This is evident through the
public trust doctrine under the Hawaii Constitution, and the principles that it embodies, as implied by Article XI
1. The State and its political subdivisions shall conserve and protect... all natural resources, including land.
Further, all public natural resources are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people. This applies directly
to the area of Phakuloa where there has been a recent discovery of a deep fresh water aquifer below the training
site. Relegating the responsibility to maintain these laws and policies developed and currently implemented by the
State to the US Army would put our land and native Hawaiian rights at great risk of being threatened or infringed
upon. It is the States responsibility, not the US Armys, to protect these lands and rights for the people of Hawaii.
For these reasons mentioned above I am in firm opposition of the transfer of the responsibility of lands leased to the
United States Army to the adjutant general.
Mahalo,
Lii Nhiwa