 I'm Marcia Joyner and we are Navigating the Journey and today the Journey takes us into the land of the Hawaiian Homes Act, the Hawaiian Homes Everything and our guest is known to all of you that have watched us over the years and this is my dear friend Bill Isla who is now the director of Hawaiian Homes. Is that the correct title? Yes. And the first time Bill was with us was when he was director of Department of Land and Natural Resources which has been a long time ago. Yes. Yes. So welcome, welcome, welcome Bill. Thank you so much for always coming when we call. Thank you for inviting. First tell us about the Hawaiian Homes Act. What is it? Sure. What, no it is, it is still in effect. It is still in effect, it is a congressional act passed in 1920, implemented, started implementing in 1921 by, mainly driven by Prince Kohio who was a non-voting member of Congress. Correct at the time, but had a large, had a large following. Prince Kohio because of his responsibility to Hawaiians and the people of Hawaii saw the degrading of conditions for native Hawaiians as they were dispossessed from land. So he went to Congress, took him several years to get Congress to pass the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act whose primary purpose is to put Hawaiians back on lands and secondarily rehabilitate them. Rehabilitate meaning a lot of things because it is pretty broadly described in the act. Rehabilitate people? Yes. The conditions of native Hawaiians at that time in urban areas, they were in tenements. Is this the plantation era? This is before the plantation era. So this is, well, right about when the plantations were at their height. So basically Hawaiians were dispossessed from land, they moved to the urban areas to find jobs, cramped conditions, low wages, disease, lots of bad social indicators if we were to measure them today. So he saw all of this and went to Congress to argue for the opportunity for Hawaiians to get back on the land to become farmers and ranchers and even aquaculturists. So aquaculture is actually written into the act. That was kind of interesting. So one of the primary reasons for our being is to get people on the land. There are three different ways. We can do it in a residential lease, an agricultural lease or a pastorial lease. So the department has... What's a pastorial? Pastorial is like a ranch lease because back then there were very few neighborhood stores and people got their meat from either they raised their own or they went to the ranches and purchased cattle. So over the last almost 100 years, I think, depending on when you count, either 1920 or 1921, it's either the 99th year or the 100th year next year. And we're still discussing about what the proper time is to honor Prince Kohio and everyone that assisted. So we have 20, a little over 27,000 people that are still waiting for one of these leases. What takes so long? What takes so long is the cost of developing land in Hawaii. The type of land that we have, some of it is flat, much of it is not. Some of it has water resources, much of it does not. So we spend a lot of time trying to bring water to... So you have to put in... Your office has to put in the infrastructure. That is correct. We basically pay for infrastructure. In the modern world, it's road, sewers, water, electricity. Shouldn't it be solar instead of electricity? We have a program where we allow beneficiaries and leases to install solar to help reduce their costs. Yeah, but I think some people still like that comfort of knowing that in case something happens, a storm or something, that they have that ability to access point electric. So in the first, I want to say, 40, 50 years of the act, it was a federal act. And very little federal funds were applied. So the department at that time was... Its main source of funding was revenue off of leases that were still in effect. So much of the lands that came to the HHL at that time were under leased to sugar companies and big ranches. So as part of the act, it said that we would honor those leases until they ran out. However, payment for these leases was really what paid for the operations of the department. So those payments came to you? Those payments came to the precursor of the Department of Wine Homelands. So I'm not sure what it was called under the territory, but basically this managing agency. It did the best it could with the resources that it had. It did not have a lot of money allocated for improvements, infrastructure, water and those kinds of things. We fast forward to 1959. Hawaii becomes a state. One of the requirements for Hawaii becoming a state, the federal government says, is you will take responsibility for this program. So since 1959, the department was created as a state agency. And a lot of folks, a lot of our beneficiaries like to think of themselves as quasi-independent. However, because we're a state agency, I have to operate under the state rules, regulations, and the federal oversight that has rules and regulations. So that makes me unpopular with some of our beneficiaries who are on the path to nation within a nation or independent status. However, I keep reminding them that I have these rules and regulations that I have. And then we go to the legislature every year with the governor's assistance to request monies. The last two years we've been fairly well-blessed. We've got about $25 million in our capital improvement budget for each year. The capital improvement is for the infrastructure. That'll help us build infrastructure. So roads, sewers, it could go to the development of a well, the infrastructure to take the transport that water from that well either to another county system or perhaps to our system, because we manage three water systems. We lose a lot of money on those systems, but it's a necessary benefit to our homesteaders, especially on Moloka'i, where a lot of the larger aglots are. Well, now tell me this, you have land on each island? Yes, including Lanai, which we just received, I want to say, in the last 15 years. Yes. Ni'ao? No, no land on Ni'ao, it's private, the only one. Yes. Okay, now Moloka'i and that Moloka'i Ranch for sale, all of that land is just sitting there. So do you get to any part of that? You get a part of their lease, Moloka'i Ranch? No, we do not. That's private. I mean down the road, if they decide to sell in the state and the state were to purchase some of those lands, and it's possible that we could get additional lands, but we have plenty of lands on Moloka'i. What we're missing is water to develop those lands. Water on Moloka'i is a big deal. So what's needed on Moloka'i is another well drilled outside of the current aquifer, because right now we have three straws in that aquifer, and it's beyond sustainable yield right now. So if we had either Moloka'i Ranch or the county dig another well, then we could utilize the excess allocation to increase water to our beneficiary. Now I understand that Moloka'i Ranch wants to sell the whole thing, and they don't want to divvy it up. Is that true? I've heard that. I have not been in any of the negotiations. Because that's a lot of land to sell at one time. It is, but I think the foreign company wants to get out of that and invest that money elsewhere. So they need the whole thing? They want to sell it all at once, including their operations of their water system attached to Moloka'i Ranch. That's really a big... You could put a lot of people on that land. We could, and we could put a lot more people on our land if we just had more water. Developing more water is a priority on the island of Moloka'i for us. One of the biggest challenges for me as Chair is that we have a certain segment of the beneficiary class that wants the department to emphasize more economic development on their behalf. And so we have opposition to leasing of lands that are not required for homesteading. That has always been part of our history. So all of these lands that were leased to the sugar companies in the ranches prior to is what basically paid for the operations, the improvements on the homelands prior to becoming a state agency. Now that they're gone and the land is... Do you still get any residuals from those companies? On state lands that were formally leased to sugar and had sugar operations, we're supposed to be getting 30% of the revenue. So let's say somebody built a hotel on lands that were formally used for sugar. We're supposed to get 30% of those revenues. Are people building hotels on the land? I guess on Maui, huh? It's totally possible. There's actually a hotel on Kauai that came into our inventory as part of the Act 14 settlement. So we're basically paying ourselves with the lease rent. And there are other leases that were formally sugar. We're also supposed to get 30% off of any water licenses. And you're saying, suppose... Yes. So... Is that an operative word? Yes, yes. So all the water licenses... You're trying to tell me... All the water licenses have expired. There's been several court cases about how the new process should occur. It hasn't occurred yet. So no new water licenses have been issued. As long as that's the case, we're not receiving 30% of the revenue off of those water licenses. And then the challenge becomes... In Hawaii, where water is a public trust resource, how do you value that water? You have to put a dollar? For the value of the license, if we're going to collect... No, no, I meant on the water. We would have to put a value on the license, right? And then collect 30% off of that. Okay. That's being discussed right now. Yes, nobody knows. Well, it's in court. It's in the legislature. It's in many avenues right now, and we haven't answered that question. Okay, now, how does OHA fit with your office, Hawaiian Homes? So the Department of Hawaiian Homes and the Hawaiian Homeland program was created in 1921. OHA was created in 1978. Right. So how do they work together or do they? We have the same beneficiary class. Although OHA expands their beneficiary class to those who have less than 50%. They receive, it's supposed to be 20%. The wording is 20% of the revenue off of seeded lands. However, they receive a formula. So they're basically getting about 15.1, 15.2 million per year. And then additional allocations from the legislature in addition to the revenue that they generate off of their, let's call it an endowment for now, money that they have for investing. And so that's how OHA is funded. Now can they build, can they put people on the land? That's not your land, but some of their land. They could. And I understand that the trustees are looking for it. We've partnered because we share beneficiary classes, right? So we've partnered. OHA has committed to funding some of the bonds that we have put out there that have led to houses being built, roads being built, infrastructure being built. So OHA continues to pay $3 million a year to help us pay for those bonds. Oh, great. Now we have to take a break and we'll be back in just one minute. And then we're going to talk about the elephant in the room. Sure. Mauna Kea. We'll be right back. Hello, I'm Mufi Haname. I want to tell you about a great show that appears on Think Tech Hawaii. It's all about tourism. In fact, we call it Tourism 101 where we talk about the issues and challenges that faces our number one industry throughout the state. We'll have some interesting guests from a very informative dialogue and allow you an opportunity to maybe learn a little bit more about why this industry is so important for our state. It's been great for us in the past. We need it today and especially going forward. That's Tourism 101 on Think Tech Hawaii. Mahalo. Aloha. My name is Victoria and I'm a host at The Adventures in Small Business. This is a collaboration between U.S. Small Business Administration, Hawaii District Office, and its partners where we showcase the stories of local entrepreneurs and small businesses. Talk about how to start a business. Talk about great tips for small business owners. Please join us every Thursday, 11 a.m. at Think Tech Hawaii. See you soon. Mahalo. I'm Marcia and we're back and we are talking with my dear friend and all of you know I only talk to dear friends with Bill Isla and Bill is the director of Hawaiian Homes and he was the director of land and natural resources and a whole lot of other stuff. Yes. Now, while you were land and natural resources, the thing of the telescope came up. So let's start there and let's see what that impact on the Hawaiians is or has been or will be. Let's start there. Sure. So the conditional use permit to construct in a conservation district, the telescope, came before the Board of Land and Natural Resources while I was the chair. After undergoing environmental impact statement, many different management plans, many different studies and the board voted to approve the CDUP permit at the time. There was a question of whether the board, excuse me, could make that decision without taking into account a request for a contested case hearing prior to making the decision. That was challenged. Ultimately, that was taken all the way to the Hawaii Supreme Court and they ruled against basically the board's decision. Subsequently, under new chair, the whole process started all over again. That decision was affirmed and through many different appeals, the permit process again went all the way up to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court ruled that yes, indeed, the University of Hawaii TMT followed the law and therefore TMT should be allowed to proceed and that brings us to the present day situation where there are some folks on the road blocking the movement of equipment up to the mountain to begin the construction. Well, it seems to me in listening that most people don't know that it went all the way to the Supreme Court. Most people don't have a sense of the background of what has gone on these 10 years prior to this and listening to what's going on, there doesn't seem to be anyone that the mountain, the management of the mountain or anything, will come to the microphone and explain all of this. So people around the world have no concept. It's almost like one day there's a telescope and now these people are protesting and saying, you know, and well, you know, I come from a long line of protesters, so that's not an issue. But if we don't know the full background, then what they're asking for does not have any meaning. But we need to know. So I think there's been a change in how people gather information and with the, you know, with the prevalence, if you will, of social media. There are many, many thoughts out there on social media about things and that's very difficult to, as you and I would do in the past, do our homework and study something very intently before making a decision, right? So many folks make up their minds based on what they see on social media without doing the full sort of analysis. And that's where we are today. Particularly for me, what I've been accused of lately as the chair of the Department of Homeland Homelands is not practicing my fiduciary duty as a fiduciary for the, advocating for the road, Mauna Kea Access Road. And, you know, we've done the research. We are obtaining advice, of course, the Attorney General's Office. And back in 1994, 1995, the legislature, as part of a larger settlement with the past bad practices of removing and using without commission of Homeland Homelands, created the settlement in Act 14. Act 14 gave the department a little more than $600 million for past unauthorized use of Department of Homeland Homelands. It required DLNR to put back another 16,000 plus acres into our inventory, our land inventory to make it whole. And then there's a small settlement on Kauai issues, and then there was some money that was charged for a school in Nanakuli being on Homeland and not compensating for it, and a couple of other small things. So with that act in 1994, 1995, it settled all of these claims. The legislature knew that it was going to take a while to get through the compensation part. So they basically said that by initiating this settlement, the Department of Transportation has operational authority, jurisdiction over the road, Mauna Kea Access Road, actually. So I have beneficiaries who don't like that, and they're promoting another view. However, as I'm advised by, I'm a stated agency, advised by state attorneys, Act 14 settled this. So this is something that's being actively debated, I think, on the mountain by beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries who don't agree that the Department of Transportation has the road and has the authority to close the road. And so this is actually causing a lot of discomfort in my community and actually showing his face in some of the Hawaiian Homes Commission meetings and taking up a lot of time away from actually trying to get more people on the land. So it's just for your department, it's the road. But as big as the mountain is, there are sacred places, I'm sure. Of course. But all of these other telescopes are there. What about that? Because they're not on Hawaiian homelands? I don't have a say on that. But in terms of the protest, it seems to be only geared to one telescope and not the others. I think depending on who you talk to that are occupying the road right now on the mountain, they all have feelings about whether it's one telescope or all the rest of the telescope. Yeah. I would just point out that, you know, Monarchy Access Road represents about 67 acres of more than 300 acres of roads and highways that either the counties or the state use without our permission. And that's part of the settlement. So it's kind of a larger discussion about all the roads across Hawaii that either the state or the county use without our permission. Oh boy. So is there, I know this is asking a lot, a way to settle this amicably so that the people that are protesting, the people that want a sacred place on the mountain can have a sacred place without this doing away with the telescope. Is as big as the mountain is, can't there be sacred places? I believe the answer is yes. And the mayor of Hawaii Island, Mayor Harry Kim and the governor are open to any types of suggestions or negotiations on how to achieve just that. Because that seems to me, I can't see that the telescope is either or. I just can't believe as big as that mountain is that it's an either or. That's something that's being discussed as time goes by, right? The mayor has held probably about three or four meetings and I don't know how many individual meetings to try to accomplish just that. So I don't know that he's been successful as of yet, but he's still trying. Oh bless him. My goodness, can you imagine last year with the volcano and now this, he has been through so much. Well, Mayor Kim has a lot of experience, so. But how much can his heart take? You know what? He still rides his bike six miles a day. Yes, I know. He's such a treasure, a real treasure. And I just have to know that this is going to settle. There's got to be a settlement for both sides. I mean, it can't be either or. I have to believe everybody is praying for that. Yeah, it just can't be either or. And my view, of course, and when I met you, a man of the sea, a man of the ocean, the Hawaiians were traveling around the world guided by the stars when the Europeans thought they'd fall off dead. They have been so far out in advance of everybody else on the planet. And so for me, the telescope is just further that knowledge. It just furthers that knowledge. So I can't see that it has to go away. I just think that they belong together. It's more knowledge. It takes the Hawaiians even further ahead of the rest. They should be ahead of the world. The Hawaiian should be at the top of the world. Polygyne Voyaging Society, but just less than a year ago, got back from a worldwide voyage, right? Yes. Carrying the message of we need to protect our canoe, the planet Earth. And so I like to think that there are cooler heads that are thinking about how everybody benefits and how the children of Hawai'i benefits going forward. Yes. Well, Bill, thank you. Thank you for coming. Thank you for spending this time with us, and you will be back. Sure. Aloha. Thank you all for coming and spending this time with us, and we'll see you next time.