Maine must maintain a balance between the environment and the use of natural resources.

As the new legislative session gets under way in Augusta, one of the many important issues being discussed is the future of the Land Use Regulation Commission — a long-standing regulatory agency that governs Maine’s unorganized territories.

It might not surprise you to know that a lot of undeveloped lands, forest and wilderness in Maine don’t actually exist in a town at all. They are a part of the state’s unorganized territories; land that doesn’t fall within the lines of any organized town or city. Because they don’t exist in a town, these tracts are not held to the same standards of development that organized communities are.

This creates a unique challenge for Maine. We are a state that both values and benefits economically from our clean air, woods and water; and we’re also a state that relies on our natural resources for manufacturing and tourism. It’s important that we maintain a healthy balance between the two, and LURC plays the critical role of managing that balance for these large areas.

Since August, a study commission charged with recommending reforms for LURC has traveled the state listening to people who live and work in the region. The message has largely been the same across the state: Improve LURC, don’t abolish it.

The study commission listened. They wisely opted not to abolish LURC but to provide some common-sense reforms to better achieve a healthy balance, including shifting some LURC responsibilities to other state departments; relocating staff closer to unorganized territories; and changing the appeals process. Two of the more controversial recommendations allow counties to opt out of LURC oversight and allow county commissioners to appoint themselves to the board.

Democrats agree with 90 percent of the recommendations. However, we don’t support the proposal to allow county commissioners to appoint themselves directly to the board. We believe the board members should be approved by elected lawmakers.

We also oppose giving counties the ability to opt out of regulation entirely; this would result in a patchwork of regulations, lack of regional zoning, and unpredictability for landowners and businesses. It has become very clear that there is major heartburn over this provision from citizens, landowners and conservation groups alike.

Allowing counties to opt out undermines the public interest and benefit. If the counties can get an exemption from the rules, what is the point of having them? Why did the panel spend many months carefully crafting recommendations that may simply be ignored?

While we have strong bipartisan agreement on the bulk of the study commission’s recommendations, partisan posturing and political pressure may jeopardize the good work of the study commission.

This past week, Republican chairs of the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee blocked lawmakers from participating in drafting a bill based on the work of the citizen study commission charged with recommending reforms for LURC. Instead, the committee chairs directed unelected members to do so behind closed doors.

It has become clear that ideological differences may continue to drive this discussion. It is very reminiscent of last spring when the study commission was formed to evaluate ways to improve LURC after legislation, championed by Senate President Kevin Raye, R-Perry, to completely eliminate the body failed to gain needed Republican support.

In a blog post on the committee meeting from Tuesday, well-known Republican and advocate for sportsmen George Smith nailed it. He wrote, “I can’t ever remember an instance in which a legislative committee asked non-committee members to draft a committee bill. Very unusual.”

Smith also wrote, “The usual process would have been for the committee to work through the study commission’s recommendations, and reach agreement on those that a majority of committee members want to put in a piece of legislation that would then go to a public hearing.”

We shouldn’t be outsourcing our work to unelected citizens to do behind closed doors. There is no accountability.

We believe the study commission reforms are a good step in the right direction, but feel strongly about removing the opt-out provision and providing greater oversight of the board nominations.

Thanks to the thoughtful work of the LURC Reform Task Force, lawmakers may just be able to find common ground. Democrats hope that work won’t be jeopardized by a disregard for a fair and open process.

Rep. Jeff McCabe, D-Skowhegan, is ranking minority leader on the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee.