MAINE COASTAL LEGISLATION REPORT

For immediate release April 10, 2003

Contact: Ron Huber, Penobscot Bay Watch 207-594-5717

Maine legislators hear pros and cons of aquaculture reform.
Towns press to keep and strengthen an 'authoritative role' in salmon, shellfish aquaculture permitting.

AUGUSTA CIVIC CENTER. Legislators faced a packed room of supporters and opponents of aquaculture reform yesterday, as a dozen bills relating to fishpens, shellfish cages, community rights and fishpen moratoria came before the Maine legislature's Marine Resources Committee for first reading.

Among the bills discussed, one that reached across a broad spectrum of speakers was LD 648 "An Act Clarifying Municipalities' Authority to Assign Mooring Permits." Introduced by Representative John Eder (Green-Portland), the bill updates the Maine harbormaster law by adding aquaculture to the list of activities that are under town jurisdiction in municipal waters.

Eder explained how his bill would bring the harbormaster law up to the 21st century from its 19th century origins. The bill both legitimizes aquaculture as an important addition to the mix of businesses using Maine coastal waters, and preserves the power of local communities to keep the rights of all other harbor-users respected.

Supporters of the bill, including the Maine Municipal Association, harbormasters and conservationists. told the committee that the bill's passage is necessary to ensure that the expansion of fishpens and shellfish cages along Maine's coast fit harmoniously into the mix of uses already taking place in municipal waters.

Permitting agencies such as the US Army Corps of Engineers generally accept town authority to issue and revoke mooring permits to fishing vessels and pleasure craft, marinas and lobster floats for three miles out from shore, out to the edge of state/federal jurisdiction.

But the law that regulates this authority was written in the 19th century, well before salmon farms, oyster cages and mussel ropes began dotting the Maine coast in the early 1990's. Supporters of the bill said that updating the Maine Harbormaster Law to acknowledge fish farms and shellfish farms as legitimate uses of town harbors will end the considerable friction presently seen between town governments and the state over aquaculture leasing.

Jeff Austin, legislative advocate for the Maine Municipal Association, told the committee that passage of LD 648 was important to keeping an authoritative role for town governments in aquaculture permitting in town waters, and that any effort to weaken that power in town govenments would meet considerable resistance from the municipalities.

The committee seemed impressed when at a request from the podium, harbormasters from towns across the Maine coast, led by Falmouth Harbormaster John Dalton, stood up from their seats in the hall. Saint George Harbormaster Dave Schmanska explained in some detail the importance of upgrading the Harbormaster Law, including putting aquaculture operations under the same regulatory activity as other harbor users. He noted that the town of Saint George had aready adopted an ordinance that empowered him to charge a fee for aquaculture moorings, but that this authority could wither away under litigation unless codified into state harbormaster law.

Other notable supporters of LD 648 included Blue Hill fish dealer Rob Bauer, scallop restorationist and fisherman Marsden Brewer of Stonington, and businessman Todd Merrolla of Northport, who read from a letter from the Northport Selectmen endorsing the bill's language

DMR Commissioner George Lapointe criticized the bill, saying that it would amount to a town veto over a state licensed operation, a position echoed by many representaives of the fishpen industry at the hearing. But residents of Deer Isle, Rockland and elsewhere along the coast said that aquaculture operations along the Maine coast are increasingly owned by industry giants from Europe and Canada. Keeping a part of the aquaculture permitting process at the local level, they believe, will ensure that the industry will meet the towns on an equal and respectulf footing.

Ron Huber of Penobscot Bay Watch told the committee, "Paradoxically, it is the smallest unit of government, our towns, who are the governments that can take on big business on anything like an equal footing."

LD 648 'An act Clarifying Municipalities' Authority to Assign Mooring Permits' will be the subject of a followup work session by the Marine Resrouces Committee at the statehouse next week .

END

BACKGROUND
MAINE HARBORMASTER LAW

LD 648 SPONSORS Introduced by Rep John Eder (Portland), Cosponsored by Walter Ash (Belfast) & Nancy Sullivan, (Biddeford.)

OFFICIAL BILL SUMMARY.
"This bill adds aquaculture to the list of activities that require mooring permits from municipal harbor masters and clarifies that municipalities with harbor masters may exercise exclusive authority to assign mooring permits within waters under their jurisdiction."

WHO SUPPORTS LD 648? Bill has the support of the Maine Municipal Association, the Eliot, Booth Bay and Boothbay Harbor harbormasters. The Falmouth, Brunswick, Freeport, Portland, Yarmouth, Cumberland harbormasters of the Casco Bay region. The Penobscot Bay area harbormasters of Belfast, Rockland, Saint George, Castine, Stonington and Blue Hill are also supportive. Many of them were at the hearing on the 9th to explain why. There are NO opponents to this bill among Maine's habormasters.

WHAT CHANGES DOES THE BILL MAKE TO THE HARBORMASTER LAW?
(1) Adds 'aquaculture' ' to the list in the Harbormaster Law of activities that must get town permits to anchor moorings in town waters.

(2) Adds "aquaculture lease holder" to the list of harbor users in the statute which a harbor master may refuse or revoke mooring privileges to, for failure to pay a "fee, charge for services, forfeiture or penalty levied pursuant to this subchapter" (existing language in quotations.)

(3) Adds "or whose activities are determined by the harbor master to unreasonably interfere with existing uses" to the list of reasons above that a harbormaster may cite when refusing or revoking mooring privileges of aquaculture operators and other harbor users.

(4) Adds "state agencies" to the list of government organizations that CANNOT override a town's decision on permitting or refusing a mooring permit or group of mooring permits. This is an essential element of Maine's Home Rule for its maritime towns

LINE BY LINE CHANGES THE BILL MAKES:
The additions to the harbormaster law are in [[double brackets]] Deletions are in [single brackets]

§3 Mooring Sites
"...the harbor master shall assign and indicate only to the masters or owners of boats and vessels [[ and aquaculture lease holders ]] , the location that they may occupy for mooring purposes ..."

"...To the extent that there is any inconsistency between this subchapter and any law which that establishes or otherwise provides for a [[ state agency,]] port authority, board of harbor commissioners or [similar] [[ other]] authority for any coastal waters of the State, that inconsistency shall must be resolved in favor of this subchapter.

"...A harbor master may refuse to assign mooring privileges to any vessel or boat owner or master [[ or aquaculture lease holder]] who has not paid any fee, charge for services, forfeiture or penalty levied pursuant to this subchapter, [[ or whose activities are determined by the harbor master to unreasonably interfere with existing uses. " ]] §7. Relation to other laws
Nothing in this subchapter [[ or in any other state law ]] may be
regulate the assignment or placement of moorings and other activities in their harbors

All other changes are grammatical.
(changing "that" to "which" in one sentence
Changing "similar" to other" in one sentence

================================================================================

HOW DID THE LEGISLATURE TREAT AQUACULTURE LAST YEAR? Click for for copies of testimony and hearings.

END