The current crop of local government approaches to preserving working waterfronts might be best understood as first, second and possibly third generation solutions. Each fulfills different needs along Maine’s coast. Clearly, a variety of local solutions is necessary to do the job.
“The most important solutions to working waterfront access come from the local level”, said Jim Connors at the Maine State Planning Office, “and the longevity of a working waterfront ultimately rests with the community and their selectmen.” Tools available to local governments for protecting working waterfront include comprehensive planning, harbor ordinances, zoning and public investment.
The town of Harpswell, for example, has put high priority on preserving working waterfront as it revises its comprehensive plan. The challenge for coastal and island communities is to convene a “representative” group that can remain motivated throughout the planning process – no small task when people are already stretched thin, volunteering for many other committees.
At present, communities are not required to address their working waterfront specifically in their comprehensive planning process, but officials at the Department of Marine Resources and the State Planning Office are working to create more of an awareness among coastal leaders that this should become a priority.
Comprehensive plans can be developed to inform harbor ordinances in a way that will protect working waterfronts. Camden recently went through the process of generating new harbor ordinances that ultimately remained faithful to the harbor’s remaining fishermen while accommodating new needs. In Camden this includes dedicated docking and parking for fishermen.
Harbor ordinances are essentially policing tools with harbormasters enforcing the will of the harbor committee, which in turn speaks for the community. J.B. Mack, a researcher at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, put it this way: “With the composition of many Maine towns fluctuating away from traditional fishing communities to resort communities, there may be a tipping point where harbor committees stop initiating ordinances that favor fishermen in favor or growing recreational interests… Other tipping point issues like mooring priorities and noise issues can help or hurt support for commercial fishermen.”
Exclusive and mixed-use zoning ordinances can impact working waterfronts. Vinalhaven and Friendship are often held up as examples of places where zoning has been an effective tool for prioritizing access for fishing use. Exclusive zoning is applied in situations where the community would like to restrict land use to water-dependent or fishing uses. However, fishing is often just one of the industrial, commercial, and transportation uses required to sustain water-dependent communities. For this reason, more broadly defined water dependent use ordinances might be more appropriate for some community.
Water-dependent uses are defined by Maine state law as: “those uses that require for their primary purpose, location on submerged lands or that require direct access to, or location in, coastal waters and which therefore cannot be located away from these waters”
Mixed-use zoning opens waterfronts to many more development options including private residences, the costs of which can be devastating to fishing communities – people might lobby to eliminate the smells and sounds of a working waterfront. Simply put, the argument for mixed-use zoning is that private renters can cross-subsidize other uses that have a lower profit margin.
The logic underlying these various ordinance tools is that the more restrictive the zoning, the more secure the working waterfront. But restrictive zoning must be enacted strategically or else the government can be accused of “taking,” which runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment (“…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”) and the 14th Amendment, requiring that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
“Public capital investment, initiated and guided by local commitment and planning, can have the longest-term impact of all options available to local government” states Jim Connors. Working waterfront infrastructure needs can include boat ramps, parking, wharves, boat repair facilities, floats, moorings, dredging and loading space for commercial trucks. Because of the nature of these investments they are less prone to change with fluctuations in local political will or because of shifting demographic patterns.
The Small Harbor Improvement Program (SHIP) administered by the state Department of Transportation (DOT) is one example of how local investment commitment in working waterfronts can be matched by state support. SHIP is an important source of capital for local improvements and maintenance of working waterfronts. Kevin Rousseau of the DOT explains, “SHIP has funded such municipal projects as new wharf construction, complete pier rehabilitations, float construction and installation, pier re-fendering, commercial boat ramp installation or rehabilitation, shore side improvements such as parking, and land purchases to improve public access.”
However, SHIP money is under threat of diminishing, just as demand for it is growing rapidly, “In the 2002 round of funding, $1.27 million of SHIP funds were matched with $1.06 million in local funds,” said Rousseau, “leveraging SHIP funds almost dollar for dollar. Unfortunately, demand for these funds outstrips supply. In 2002, the SHIP program only funded 21 of the 40 proposals received.”
How well to these tools function as means of preservation? Ordinances can generally be referred to as “first generation” tools that will secure working waterfront for the people who currently depend on it for their livelihood. As J.B. Mack points out, these ordinances generally “function as a way to build community recognition” in the case of fishermen, by giving them their own land use category. Ordinances differ from capital investment, which may be there for two generations or more, depending on the locality’s commitment to upkeep. Tools that can last to the third generation of water-dependent communities and beyond can include the purchase of development rights and the transfer of development rights. These “Third Generation” or parcel-by-parcel solutions to preserving working waterfront are currently under review in Maine as both local land trusts and the state review their implications.
This is the second in a series of articles on protecting Maine’s remaining working waterfronts.