What Happens Now to Hawai‘i’s Military-Leased Lands?

Photo: Naka Nathaniel

Imagine the state of Hawai‘i and the military sitting at a card table, playing poker. While wary of each other, they’re playing by the rules of the game.

In the pot is a series of leases for state lands now controlled by the military and set to expire in 2029.

This isn’t the first time this game has been played.

In 1964, the state of Hawai‘i, represented by the Board of Land and Natural Resources, was absolutely fleeced by the military, which walked away with 65-year leases for 29,000 acres of land. The cost to the military for all of that: $1. The lands were part of the ceded territories that the U.S. took over from the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1898, then transferred back to Hawai‘i in 1959. They have been used for live-fire exercises and military maneuvers.

Having paid that dollar, the military was given unrestricted use of the lands. And for decades, it bombed the ‘āina between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa on Hawai‘i Island and in Mākua Valley, Kahuku and Kawailoa-Poamoho on O‘ahu, including with depleted uranium shells, which left the state lands radioactive.

There’s no automatic renewal process for the leases, so the players are back at the table again.

SEE ALSO: What’s With the Underwhelming Military Response on Maui?

The military has expressed interest in holding onto the lands. Here are the three likely outcomes: 1. The state of Hawai‘i and the military negotiate new leases. 2. The state takes back the lands, as it did with Kaho‘olawe. 3. The military seizes the lands.

This time around, Hawai‘i has an almost unbeatable hand, something better than an ace-high full house, and with the leases set to expire, the military seemed prepared to pay a lot more to hold onto the lands.

With that, Hawai‘i could possibly have gotten billions in return from the military. Or maybe nonmonetary exchanges could have been negotiated. For instance, the U.S. government could transfer federal lands to the state in exchange for the state lands, or, intriguingly, the Pentagon could help fund Hawai‘i’s Department of Education.

Prior to the election, self-professed optimist Dawn Chang, current chair of the state’s Board of Land and Natural Resources, said the military and the state of Hawai‘i could be inspired by last summer’s novel climate change settlement in Navahine F. v. Hawai‘i Department of Transportation. As in that case, she said the parties could set aside the usual adversarial elements of a negotiation and work together to reach the best deal for both parties.

Meanwhile, the groups who had stymied construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope atop Mauna Kea were stiffening their spines again and pushing for the best outcome possible.

In the case of the expiring leases, the possible outcomes had been limited only by the imaginations of the players. In all likelihood, either new leases would be signed in exchange for a huge benefit or Hawai‘i would get its land back—despite it being mostly uninhabitable due to unexploded ordnance and the use of depleted uranium shells. Any deal would be better than a 65-year land lease for a dollar.

And while there’s no indication that the incoming president will barge into the room where the game is being played and leave with not only the pot, but the table and cards as well, Gov. Josh Green thinks it’s a possibility, and he’s prepared.

“There’s nothing that could be done to block a president if they decided to act unilaterally,” Green says. And he’s right: The president has the power to sign an executive order taking the lands in the name of national defense. Under a Democratic president, Hawai‘i Sens. Brian Schatz and Mazie Hirono would have been well-connected to lobby for the best outcome for the state. But that’s not the case now.

Now, even if Hawai‘i wins, the pot will likely be much smaller than it could have been. And Hawai‘i will be lucky if there’s even a deal to be had with the incoming president’s Department of Defense.

So what’s Hawai‘i to do? Is there any action that could be taken before the new administration takes over? Green says the window is too small to get a deal done during the waning weeks of the Biden administration and that the issue will be settled before the 2028 elections. “Some of this could be finalized between 28 and 29—that is possible, but there’s a lot of work that needs to be done in good faith between now and then,” he says. “So I’m going to work in good faith with the new administration.”

And activism? Any negotiations would have happened in meeting rooms far from the site of the lands filled with unexploded ordnance. Even the bravest and most committed activists might think twice before wandering into a Mākua Valley or a Pōhakuloa.

Unless an executive order is signed seizing the state lands, Green and Chang say they will remain at the table.

“Hopefully, the negotiators in the military will continue to be allowed to work in good faith with us,” Green says.