High above Maui, on the summit of Haleakalā, a new proposal is raising serious questions about process, transparency, and the state’s kuleana to its people.
The Department of the Air Force has released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed AMOS STAR facility – up to seven telescope domes on Puʻu Kolekole, within a landscape recognized as a Traditional Cultural Property of deep significance to Native Hawaiians.
The DEIS acknowledges “significant and adverse effects” on this cultural landscape. That alone should demand scrutiny. But equally concerning is the Air Force’s decision to step away from Hawaiʻi’s environmental review law, the Hawaiʻi Environmental Policy Act (HEPA), midway through the process.
This is not a technical issue. It goes to whether the people of Hawaiʻi – especially beneficiaries of the public land trust – will have a meaningful voice in decisions that permanently alter our lands.
At the center is a simple fact: the land is owned by the State of Hawaiʻi. The parcel remains part of the public land trust (PLT) and has never been transferred to the federal government.
Federal use stems from Executive Order 1808, issued in 1957, which set aside the land for federal purposes. But a set-aside is not ownership. It is a revocable administrative designation. The state retains title. The people retain their interest.
That distinction matters.
HEPA is not a permitting law, it is a disclosure law. It ensures that environmental and cultural impacts are fully disclosed before actions are taken on state lands. Under Hawaiʻi law, use of state land triggers that requirement.
The Air Force’s argument for exiting HEPA relies on the 1957 set-aside. But that reasoning is flawed. A territorial-era executive order cannot override a state law enacted after statehood. Nor does a set-aside erase the state’s ownership or responsibility to ensure transparency.
Equally troubling is an inconsistency in the DEIS. In one section, the land is identified as state-owned. In another, it is described as “Federal land – FAA.” It cannot be both. This raises concerns about whether the project is being characterized differently depending on which regulatory framework is being invoked.
There are also procedural questions. The Air Force entered HEPA review in April 2024, then later concluded – on its own – that HEPA no longer applies after redesigning part of the project. There is no clear indication that the Department of Land and Natural Resources nor Hawaiʻi’s Environmental Review Program concurred with that determination, or that a formal withdrawal process was properly completed under state rules.
For the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, this is not abstract. These lands are part of the public land trust, held for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. Our responsibility is to ensure those trust interests are protected and that the state fulfills its fiduciary obligations with integrity.
That means asking: Does state ownership trigger HEPA, regardless of federal use? Was the withdrawal valid? Does the absence of a finalized land agreement between the FAA and Air Force preserve a state approval role? What material benefit is the state getting from allowing the Air Force to use this land? And what are the implications of inconsistent claims about ownership?
These are fundamental questions about governance and trust.
When public trust lands are at stake – especially at Haleakalā – the people of Hawaiʻi deserve full transparency before decisions are made.
