Allagash battles

In the chronic conflict over how to manage the use of the Allagash Wilderness Waterway, Maine can blunder through another legislative session with the same sets of opponents offering the same anecdotes and arguments for their version of reality. Or it can get serious about this issue by choosing an independent group to review the waterway’s founding 35 years ago, determine the federal direction that Maine agreed to and outline how closely the state has followed that direction over the years.

It can, in short, voluntarily do on a broad scale what the Army Corps of Engineers finds itself being forced to do on a single Allagash issue: Look back in detail to see how Maine got itself into its current mess.

The mess for the Corps is a dam at Churchill Lake. The dam, incredibly, was rebuilt without the necessary permit from the Corps. The state just stuck in a new one, and now has a hard time explaining why the project, which voters supported with a $1.4 million bond question, was never approved by the feds. The Corps properly is going to reopen the public record on the subject, giving Mainers who suspect the dam isn’t the only thing in the Allagash in violation of federal policy a chance to present their views.

But Maine, as a state, can do better. The Legislature will hear a bill this session that would maintain the current access points along the Allagash and take away authority of the Land Use Regulation Commission to say how the waterway is managed. The debate turns on whether the Allagash should be left as wild and remote as possible or whether it should be a recreation area with ample access. There is nothing like agreement on this question.

LURC is in trouble with the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine for deciding last year that one of the 14 points of access on the river should not be open. Other groups looking into the recent history of the Allagash argue that the federal designation of the waterway allowed for only two or three access points and offer extensive background documents on the subject. The state disagrees with this interpretation, but no officials have subjected their views to a review panel to test their accuracy. How can lawmakers be expected to make anything like an informed decision on the proposed legislation without being clear on even the purpose of the waterway? Why would this legislation stop a flood of counter legislation in the next session? They can’t and it won’t.

Earlier in his tenure, Gov. Angus King would pull together stakeholders, responsible people who knew a lot about a debated subject and had an interest in seeing the state come to agreement on it. With one lawsuit over the Allagash filed and at least one more on the way, he needs to bring together Allagash stakeholders – not people with axes to grind or with a direct financial interest in their point of view, but those with political, legal or academic backgrounds to research and recreate the agreement under which the state established the waterway. It happened not that long ago, and certainly calm, informed observers could look over the record and describe the course that Maine should have taken.

The alternative is the status quo – a low-grade, bitter dispute without end.