In the next few months, lawmakers and other community leaders need to do some serious thinking about the state's historic preservation programs.

The difficulty in dealing with Hawaiian burials unearthed in the Ward Villages construction site in Kaka'ako brings that need most sharply to mind.

In recent weeks, a panel of archaeologists reported data indicating that 335 people may have been buried on the site. That is hundreds more than was believed at the outset, when that information could have guided development plans.

The shortage of experienced staff in the State Historic Preservation Division, which has oversight of burial law, certainly added to the disorderly way burials were encountered: It would have been far better to anticipate them.

But even under the best of staffing circumstances, the respectful handling of burials under the law is especially complicated in urban Honolulu, where Hawaiians were buried traditionally in unmarked and undocumented locations, usually near their dwellings.

The intent of the law is to give families who may be descendants some say in how their ancestors' remains are treated. The idea is that these families deserve the same consideration given to those whose forbears are buried in marked cemeteries, which are not governed by the same burial law. For instance, Kawaiaha'o Church is now consulting with families on plans to reinter some of its dead before building its new church center, a process made easier by the records that are available.

By contrast, unmarked Hawaiian burials by law involve island burial councils, which help developers find possible descendants for consultation on a plan. Unfortunately, the councils have grown more contentious than helpful in some cases. And as some of the members with institutional memory have grown frustrated and left, too many unfilled seats have made achieving the quorum for meetings a problem, causing delays.

On O'ahu, all it takes to produce a sense of dread is reflecting back on the Ward and Wal-Mart burial conflicts and then thinking ahead to all the urban redevelopment in the works. Will consultation with descendants deteriorate into serial battles that serve nobody's interest?

Not every case is a failure, of course. Hawaiian cultural consultant Dawn Chang, for example, pointed out that on Kaua'i and elsewhere, the burial councils have worked closely with families and developers to plan "preservation areas" on project sites. These make it easier to treat the inevitable inadvertent burial discoveries with dignity, by providing the most ideal spot for reinterment in advance.

That proactive approach may be something that could become more standard practice through a change in the burial law.

It's just one idea that could be discussed in an informational briefing that burial program advocates are requesting before the next Legislature convenes. That would be wise. With the anticipated redevelopment of much of urban Honolulu — the mass-transit project being the foremost example — these problems can't be left festering. Beyond the burials, there are also concerns about whether there's enough oversight of other historic treasures, including buildings and artifacts.

State Sen. Jill Tokuda, D-24th (Kailua, Kane'ohe), who will chair the new Agriculture and Hawaiian Affairs Committee, said there's great interest in the Senate in discussing many broad historic preservation issues — including the results of a state-funded work group convened a year ago to find solutions.

Some solutions should focus on improving oversight of how laws are carried out; others might increase funding for the laborious research required to do a responsible job.

Finally, there may be simpler, more practical ways of tapping traditional wisdom and giving people a voice in how remains and cultural treasures are protected. That, after all, is why these laws are on the books.