Maine’s commercial fishermen know first hand that their access to the ocean shrinks yearly as demand for residential shorefront property skyrockets.
They’ll have a chance to talk about these issues at this year’s Fishermen’s Forum in Rockport. A new study on the loss of shorefront access and remedies will be the subject of at a panel on Saturday, March 2.
Back in 1989, a study by the State Planning Office found that of Maine’s 4,500 mile coastline, 175 miles were best suited for working waterfront activities. At that time over 50 percent of the 175 miles was occupied by residences and businesses not requiring waterfront access. Since 1989, pressures from growth and soaring property values have accelerated the conversion of working waterfront property to other uses.
The new study is the product of the Committee to Study the Loss of Commercial Fishing Waterfront Access and other Economic Development Issues Affecting Commercial Fishing which Rep. David Etnier (D-Harpswell) introduced to the legislature.
The study committee focused on two key issues: waterfront access and economic development relating to the fishing industry. It also drafted legislation to implement some of the committee’s recommendations.
Etnier, long concerned about this issue, previously had sponsored an amendment to the Maine Constitution to provide for the assessment of waterfront land used for commercial fishing purposes based on the current used of the property instead of the “highest and best use” standard that sets taxation levels.
In the November 2000 election the referendum was defeated in a close vote of 50.46 percent against and 49.54 percent in favor.
Deeming the issue too important to drop, Etnier then sponsored the formation of the committee to study and report back to the legislature. Sen. Ken Lamont (R-Kittery) and Rep. David Lemoine (D-Old Orchard Beach) chaired the committee. Other members included Etnier, Rep. Deborah McNeil (R-Rockland), Sue Inches (Department of Marine Resources), Kathleen Leyden (State Planning Office), Brian Beal (UM Machias), J. Douglas Guy (fishing industry), John Bubier (municipal government) and Elizabeth Sheehan (fishing).
Inches said that the committee found it needed “to tackle the big picture, just how the waterfront works and that an all-new tax piece was only a small part” of it.
Leyden said that committee also felt that the mood of the current legislature would not support a change in taxation policy.
Meeting frequently throughout the fall, the study committee looked at diverse data, much of it gathered together for the first time. They also found that they lacked hard data on the pressures currently facing the working waterfront.
They listened to representatives of various interests such as the fishing industry, the state’s submerged lands program, the state Department of Transportation, the Maine Municipal Association and the Maine Coast Heritage Trust.
The committee found that while Maine enacted in 1978 a coastal management program administered by the State Planning Office, the actual power to regulate waterfront access rests with local government. Since Maine is a “home rule” state, each municipality undertakes land use planning and how to regulate waterfront access to commercial, industrial and recreational interests.
The committee found that of the 139 coastal towns in Maine, 71 had adopted some type of waterfront or maritime district in their ordinances. But these ordinances varied greatly in their protection of working waterfront.
Towns with good comprehensive plans, said Inches, usually had the support of a few excellent volunteers doing the ground work. Towns without such dedicated volunteers either had no plan or a weak one.
The committee’s draft legislation addresses the “big picture” in three ways. Inches warns that “there’s no silver bullet for this serious issue; it needs a combination of many things.”
The first part of the legislation, “Coastal Management Review,” directs the State Planning Office to look at state oversight of coastal management, incentives for quality local coastal management, and the ways to evaluate effectiveness. A priority focus is shoreside land use regulation, protection of both public access and commercial access.
Leyden said that the committee recognized that “the best thing to do was to help towns interested in doing a better job.”
“We didn’t want to be heavy-handed at the state level,” said Inches, “we wanted home rule to work. It’s our job to educate and provide materials.”
The State Planning Office would report back its findings and recommendations by December 2002 to the Marine Resources Committee.
The second part directs the Department of Marine Resources and the State Planning Office to form an interagency board to share data and review all aspects of waterfront access. Their report would be submitted annually to the Marine Resources Committee.
The third part directs DMR to investigate setting up a seafood innovation, marketing and research fund. Its report is due January 2003.
Inches, who would be assuming this responsibility herself, feels that the program is needed. “It’s time to see if Maine’s seafood industry is willing to put some money behind this,” she said. Since the seafood industry is very cyclical, the fund would help fishermen and businesses shift gears to adapt to changing market conditions.
The report is available at from the Legislature’s Office of Policy and Legal Analysis (287-1670) and on the Web at www.state.me.us/legis/opla under “Legislative Study Reports.” The Fishermen’s Forum discussion of the study is scheduled for 1 to 2:30 p.m. in the Pen Bay Room on Saturday, March 2.