Rep. Paul Presents Bills to Protect Sears Island from Offshore Wind Development

Protecting Sears Island from exploitative development has been a mission of its Waldo County defenders for decades, and the latest leader in this effort wants to make sure that it is not turned into a port for controversial wind turbines.

On Wednesday, the Maine’s Legislative Committee on Environment and Natural Resources held public hearings on Wednesday for two bills from Rep. Reagan Paul (R-Winterport) that would codify protections for Sears Island into law and prevent it from being developed for that offshore turbines that have raised the ire of fishermen up and down the coast.

[RELATED: DOT Rejects Maine’s Request for $456 Million to Construct Offshore Wind Port at Sears Island…]

Both bills, LD 226 and LD 735, would create new protections for the historic and undeveloped Sears Island, which Gov. Janet Mills (D-Maine) had selected for a 100-acre development to facilitate the construction of wind turbines in the Gulf of Maine.

“Nestled off the coast of Searsport, this 940-acre island remains one of the last undeveloped gems on the eastern sea-board, a rare sanctuary of towering forests, winding trails, and quiet shores, where the rhythm of the tide still sets the pace of life,” said Rep. Paul.

During her presentation, she pointed to the decades-long history of attempts to develop Sears Island into a port, going back long before the recent efforts to dedicate a proposed port to offshore wind development.

Paul pointed to the hundreds of millions already lost by the state on the project and the numerous grant requests submitted to fund the development, which were rejected under the Biden Administration.

“MDOT [The Maine Department of Transportation] has already burned through $3,616,051 of taxpayer money chasing this dead-end project. How much more are we willing to waste? It’s time for Gov. Mills to cut our losses and do what is right: place the entire island into a conservation easement,” said Paul.

Currently, the majority of the island is dedicated conservation land, but 340 acres of the 1,000-acre island are reserved for potential development by the state.

Paul urged members of the committee to visit the island themselves so they can see the natural beauty that will be lost if the island is developed in the name of environmental programs and green energy, but perhaps in reality to irreversible damage.

Numerous everyday Mainers took the time to submit testimony in favor of Paul’s efforts to preserve the island. Ironically, conservation and pro-environmental groups were largely opposed to the bills designed to conserve and protect an area of environmental beauty.

Nearby citizens disagreed.

“It has taken the combined effort of historians, scientists, poets, artists,
writers, and musicians to remind us of the enduring comfort, solace, and beneficial
knowledge available in wild places that are kept wild,” said Kiarna Boyd of Rockland.

“We know the tragedy of industrial pollution and loss of access impacts not only the generations living now but those yet to come. For the well being of all Mainers, please protect this small but mighty place, Sears Island,” she added.

“Sears Island should be in a protected easement, not subjected to political colonization
sentenced to be moon-scaped for alternative wind energy, and we need better controls
of the body politic in the event of future shortsighted projects such as the one on Sears
Island,” said Dan Davis, a code enforcement officer from Porter, in his letter supporting the protections.

Environmental lobbyists, on the other hand, spoke against the bills and in favor of developing Sears Island in the name of the green energy revolution.

Karen Blakerock testified against the bills on behalf of the Nature Conservancy in Maine, claiming that preserving Sears Island would “subvert” the process of finding the best location for offshore wind development, while suggesting that development should minimize the damage done to the environment.

“TNC supports the work being done to identify whether port development in Maine is viable and to continue the thorough and inclusive environmental review process that identifies and requires plans to minimize or mitigate any impacts,” said Blakerock.

“Prematurely eliminating Sears Island as a possible location for development subverts a full public process and should not be done at this point in time. We should allow for the full environmental review before making any decisions that would limit our state’s ability to meet our clean energy goals,” she added.

Blakerock also suggested that the port could bring economic benefits to the state. Interestingly, The Nature Conservancy’s testimony did not address any specific concerns about potential damage to the island.

The Maine Renewable Energy Association (MREA) also opposed the bills, arguing that they could halt offshore wind development and stop Maine from meeting its green-energy environmental goals.

“Locating a floating offshore wind port in Maine is a key element to Maine realizing the myriad economic benefits of the offshore wind industry, including skilled, family-sustaining jobs. All port location options must remain on the table,” said Eliza Donoghue, executive director of the MREA.

The MREA also failed to address any concerns about the negative impact of the development on the Sears Island environment.

Although the two bills aim at the same goal, they do so in different ways.

LD 226 drew support from seven co-sponsors, including Tribal Rep. Aaron Dana (T-Passamaquoddy Tribe) and Sen. Nicole Grohoski (D-Hancock).

That bill directs the MDOT and the Maine Coast Heritage Trust to extend the current conservation easement on the majority of Sears Island to cover the parts that are not yet protected.

LD 735, which drew support from nine co-sponsors, including Rep. Dana and Sen. Grohoski, is somewhat more complicated.

It would repeal the section of the law that allows the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to permit the use of land for an offshore wind port on Sears Island, or anywhere that will affect the coastal sand dune system of the island.

The bill would require the state to establish and consult an Indigenous Lands Protection Committee before developing anything on Sears Island to determine whether the development would impact a sacred site for Maine’s indigenous people.

LD 735 would further require that any future legislation proposing to develop land under a conservation easement must be sponsored by a member of the legislature who represents the area affected by the development. That legislation would then require a two-thirds majority of the legislature to pass.

Even if Paul’s bills do not pass through the Democrat-controlled legislature, apparently intent on developing Maine’s coast into a maze of towering turbines, the Sears Island port may never come to be.

[RELATED: Trump Places Indefinite Halt on Offshore Wind Development and New England Fisherman Celebrate…]

Even under President Joe Biden, Maine was unable to secure federal funding for the project, and since taking office, President Donald Trump has made it clear that he opposes offshore wind farms, signing an order placing a temporary halt on all new offshore wind leasing.