The State of Maine intends to develop the untouched Sears Island in Searsport to build and ship offshore wind turbines, according to Downeast lawmakers who oppose the controversial project.
“It is the largest undeveloped uninhabited causeway accessible island on the eastern coast of the United States,” said Rep. Lynne Williams (D-Bar Harbor) in her letter defending Rep. Reagan Paul’s (R-Winterport) proposal to stop the development of Sears Island.
The lawmakers see the Sears Island project as a negative environmental effect of Maine’s offshore wind plans, which are supposed to lower Maine’s greenhouse gas emission and thereby forestall anthropogenic global warming.
The development of offshore wind turbines also has the potential to impact Maine’s lobster and haddock fisheries, according to scientific studies collected and distributed to media by the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association (NEFSA).
Rep. Paul’s proposal, which was appealed on Thursday’s meeting of Maine’s legislative council, would have granted a conservation easement for land on Sears Island that is not privately owned.
This would have stopped the development of 100 acres of the 940 acre island.
The appeal failed, with a vote of five-five. The four republicans on the council voted for the bill, along with Sen. Mattie Daughtry (D-Cumberland). The rest of the Democratic leaders opposed the bill.
Rep. Williams argued that, in addition to its ecological value, and its sentimental value as untouched wilderness for the people of her district, Sears Island ought to be preserved for its historical value.
“The island is rich with indigenous Wabanaki history and American history from the Revolutionary War that deserves to be preserved and protected as well,” said Paul.
[RELATED: Searsport Offshore Wind Port Meeting Scheduled for Nov. 18]
Without Paul’s bill, there is no legislation preventing Maine’s offshore wind industry from industrializing the island.
A similar bill, proposed by Rep. Tiffany Strout (R-Harrington), was appealed at the same council session as Paul’s, but, like Paul’s, it failed.
Rep. Strout’s bill would have helped Maine retain its Lobster Management Area One if it is auctioned off to company’s building offshore wind turbines.
6 Comments
The author should dig a bit deeper to find out who is greasing the way for this abomination. Aren’t we all glad that the state banned billboards back in the 70s?
Sips going in and out of this port with Ghastly wind turbine parts is the most environmentally ignorant idea that has come out of Augusta, and even before the session begins .
Sorry, I meant Ships not Sips. Nevertheless, the legislature, working in the shadows, ts determined to ruin Maine’s way of life. Maine does not deserve this kind of treatment. The almighty dollar is not worth the destruction of this island.
…Democrats have shot down any development of Sears Island for decades…until it benefits them! Disgusting!
If legislators would like deep into the rules governing National Historical sites, they would find a sturdy friend to protecting the whole island. Especially as it relates to Indian affairs and the Revolutionary war era, that whole island is a Nationally protected historic site.
This is terrible news. Yes Sears Island is of historic interest and is a scenic charmer. But more importantly, Sears Island is smack in the heart of the Penobscot estuary. You could call it THE heart of the Penobscot Estuary. Where the river coming down, meets the Gulf of Maine coming up Once the officially unlawful causeway finally gets breached, the productivity of the bay will rise so fast you’ll see that, in effect ,cutting off part of an estuary’s central circulation is very like clogging an artery: the waters know where it needs to flow but can’t get there.
A tragic blot on the US Coast Guard, thanks to the willingness of its high officials to lie to Congress so Governor Brennan could get the causeway rushed through. ” Oh yes sir, we declare that Maine DOT wishes to build a bridge to Sears Island and that though not the widest in the country , it will be a bridge.” (Hee hee!) “No congressional votes needed, sir”.
That’s bad enough, but that CLF has disavowed its past and now urges destruction of the estuary by industrializing its heart, because it is CHEAPER to ravage a natural place and build your nature saving factory on its corpse, than build at some unused industrial site, where the investors might have to pay to clean up some of the 20th century petrofunk there before they setup their factory. “Pay” is a four letter word to plutocrats; if, like CLF 3.0, one has a 27 million dollar a year budget monkey on one’s back, then, what Pluto wants, Pluto gets – suitably dressed in a solemn variant of “we had to destroy nature to save it”. But they’ve got publicists for that.