Over the last few years, it seems that everyone bemoans what Maine is lacking. If you’re conservative, the most glaring deficiency is a good business climate. If you’re liberal, the absence of affordable health care is the state’s biggest deficit. However there is something valuable that our state doesn’t lack: wilderness.

We have loads of it.

Unfortunately, most of the recent talk about smart growth and comprehensive land-use policies has been directed at municipalities. We need to start discussing some sort of broad rational planning for our wilderness.

One of the most important state agencies responsible for this task is the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC). It is under the Department of Conservation. The agency is responsible for zoning and planning for over 10.4 million acres of land. This land is in unorganized areas, plantations and townships. It is regulated by the LURC because the local government has chosen not to administer land use or has no ability to oversee land use.

The LURC has a volunteer and part-time seven member board of commissioners. The governor appoints the members, and the Legislature confirms them. The commission has a professional staff, regional offices and conducts public hearings. Besides planning and zoning, its purpose is to “preserve public health, safety, and welfare; to encourage the well-planned, multiple use of natural resources; to promote orderly development; and to protect natural and ecological values.”

Unfortunately, the public focus on this agency is usually ad hoc: a specific resort project here and a particular wind farm there. There is not enough focus on the big picture. A more holistic planning approach is needed. This will require that we pay more attention to the LURC and the difficult mission it has.

The core predicament of the LURC involves its constituency. Is it the local people? There are not a lot of them in these areas. For example, the population in Franklin County’s Sandy River Plantation is 93 and the population of Oxford County’s Magalloway Plantation is 45. A lot of areas have no permanent residents at all.

Is it the trees, lakes, rivers, mountains and wildlife? Since the agency is under the Department of Conservation, this would seem to make sense. However nature is not its exclusive constituency; it is, after all, a land use commission. Thus traditional uses of the woods such as hunting and fishing are also considered. Land use also allows resource extraction and building.

There are also different meanings of the word constituency. One definition is “a group of people thought to have common aims or views, and therefore appealed to for support.” Translated: environmentalists and outdoor enthusiasts. Another definition is “a group of people served by an organization, especially a business.” Translated: private developers are the customers and LURC is the business that serves them.

Which definition is closer to the truth?

How the controversial Plum Creek development project is reviewed by the LURC could give us an answer. The original proposal has already been revised due to public pressure. There are still concerns. Does the LURC have enough resources to adequately regulate the proposal?

In Feb. 2005, journalist Phyllis Austin wrote in the Maine Environmental News about the LURC and Plum Creek. She portrayed the LURC as being overwhelmed by the plan. Specifically, she wrote “As Plum Creek’s application looms, there’s a real question about LURC’s ability to handle a project of this size.” Currently, the agency has 24.5 positions. It had 27 positions four years ago.

In Nov. 2006, the Natural Resources Council of Maine issued a critical report on Plum Creek and some of their communications with Maine’s natural resource agencies. There is an interesting e-mail between LURC staff regarding the company’s non-compliance with rules. The specific instance concerns a powerline corridor being developed without a permit: “What is there [sic] excuse? The [Land Use Regulation] Commission’s enforcement policies support the notion of seeking a penalty for not applying for a permit even if the aft [after the fact] development ultimately complies with the Commission’s requirements(S)uch negligence with no consequence is in fact a threat to the agency’s ability to regulate.”

This makes me wonder how the agency is handling Plum Creek. Perhaps the more accurate query is: how is Plum Creek handling the LURC? Will it become a textbook case of how private developers can overpower an under publicized, and overworked regulatory agency? We will only know the answer to that when the LURC makes its final decision. Its application has been accepted for processing and public hearings are expected next year.

The LURC is supposed to be a pro-active agency. It is in the process of updating its comprehensive land use plan. Public workshops and public hearings are planned for next year. I hope these are well attended. They should be widely reported on and analyzed by the media.

Ultimately, I hope they lead to a more holistic approach to managing the wilderness of our state.

Karl Trautman is chairperson of the social sciences department at Central Maine Community College. He received his doctorate in political science from the University of Hawaii. He can be reached at [email protected].