Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 23, Number 6, 1 June 2006 — State Supreme Court affirms rejection of ceded lands claim [ARTICLE]

State Supreme Court affirms rejection of ceded lands claim

By Derek Ferrar Public lnfurmatiun Specialist The Hawai'i Supreme Court has reaffirmed its September rejection of OHA's elaim to as mueh as $300 million that the agency says it should have received in ceded lands revenue from Honolulu International Airport activities. On April 28, the court unanimously reaffirmed its earlier ruling upholding the 2003 dismissal of a lawsuit that OHA filed against the state to recover the funds. OHA said in the suit that the state should have done more to prevent the passage of a federal law that banned payments of airport revenue to OHA. The high court's ruling is separate from the temporary agreement struck between the governor and OHA in January, whieh establishes the agency's portion of puhlie land trust revenue at $15.1 million annually, with an additional one-time payment of $17.5 million for certain uncollected back revenues. That agreement dealt with cededlands revenue sources that are undisputed by the state, while the suit involved in the high court ruling dealt specifically with dis-

puted airport revenues. OHA and the governor have said that disputed revenue sources will be dealt with in future negotiations. OHA and the state have long been at odds over ceded lands issues, such as revenue from activities related to, but not directly on, ceded lands. One example is state revenue from the Waikīkl duty-free shop, whieh does not sit on ceded lands, but is an extension of the duty-free operation at the airport, whieh does. In 2003, OHA sued the state to recover an estimated $150 million to $300 million, revenue the agency said it had been deprived of because the state did not do enough to prevent the passage of a federal law called the "Forgiveness Act," whieh barred airport payments to OHA. The suit was dismissed in state Circuit Court, and last September the state Supreme Court affirmed that dismissal, saying in its ruling that "it would be impossible for (OHA) to prove whether the state's actions or inactions led to Congress' passage of the (Forgiveness) Act." In February, the high court agreed to reconsider its ruling, but then reaffirmed it in April. E1