“We disagree today with the Governor on SB 1171”

Our Constitution embodies our shared value of conserving and developing historic and cultural resources within the State for the public good. Our State’s historic preservation statute, Chapter 6E of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, was designed to further this constitutional and shared value. In that statute, the legislature proclaimed nearly four decades ago, that the “historic and cultural heritage of the State is among its important assets” and that the “public has a vital interest in the proper disposition of the bodies of its deceased persons, which is in the nature of a sacred trust for the benefit of all.”  



In this tradition and earlier this year, the Hawai`i Supreme Court, in its unanimous decision in Kaleikini v. Yoshioka, reaffirmed that these words must and do in fact mean something in practice.  The court, in what has become known as the rail case, concluded that Hawai`i’s historic preservation statute and its rules establish a sequential approach to the historic preservation review process, which requires the completion of an archaeological inventory survey prior to the approval of a project or the commencement thereof. In a very real way, this case confirmed the shared value of the people of Hawai‘i that the protection of burials is so important as to mandate the diligent, pro-active process provided for in HRS Chapter 6E.   

Look before you leap. Measure twice, cut once. Later on, we were taught to call this informed decision-making. HRS Chapter 6E puts these precise lessons into the review process with the intended effect of requiring the identification of significant historic sites in project areas and the creation of plans to handle the impact of development on such sites, in many cases by preservation in place. This has been the law since 1976. Chapter 6E seeks to capture what the legislature called a “sacred trust,” that is, the moral, humane and solemn obligation of protecting those who have provided us with the foundation upon which we stand. We disagree today with the Governor on SB 1171.

That disagreement need not result in more litigation. The claimed need for SB 1171 was based upon the rail decision’s potential impact on many of the Department of Transportation’s current projects. We believe those current projects and any future DOT projects may proceed responsibly and absent undue delay without the encompassing reach of SB 1171.  In fact, it is our position that SB 1171 has no retroactive effect and therefore does nothing for any of the DOT’s current projects.  There is a more efficient and effective way of addressing the concerns upon which SB 1171 is based without impacting the proper protection of ‘iwi. We can and must do better than SB 1171.



Diligence is the convergence of mind and soul. We owe this diligence to those upon whose shoulders we stand. While SB 1171 falls short of such diligence, we recognize and pledge that the work toward such must and will continue.