While a proposal to build a liquefied natural gas terminal on Sears Island may never come to pass – a plan to build a similar facility in Harpswell may negate this project – the prospect of development on the 940-acre state-owned island has already reignited the debate between environmental and economic interests.

That is too bad, because the future of Sears Island does not have to be bound to one or the other. There is room enough on the island for both nature and commerce. The most strident environmental groups have cleverly taken to calling Sears Island the largest undeveloped island on the East Coast. It may be, if you discount the man-made causeway that now allows pedestrian access to the island. But it is also a large chunk of land surrounded by industry in a region that sorely needs more jobs. Middle-of-the-road conservation groups, such as Maine Coast Heritage Trust, understand this and support the development of recreation areas, such as a town park, along side commercial development, such as a pier.

The time for protest is over. Former Gov. Angus King and his transportation commissioner, John Melrose, made it clear that the state purchased the island in 1997 chiefly for future transportation projects. Since the Department of Transportation, not conservation, owns the land it should be pretty clear that port projects, properly meeting environmental standards, would take precedence. However, there is room for both development and preservation, if environmental groups work with the state rather than against it.

An effort to develop a cargo port on the island in the 1990s was dropped – after considerable expenditure of state money – in part because of unending protests from some environmental groups. In the end, it was discovered that there were problems with the port design, too.

This should not happen again. Before getting up the hopes of local taxpayers, who would certainly like help carrying the local budget, the state must first ensure that LNG is a good product to bring to a port and there is a need for this project in light of the Harpswell proposal, which will be voted on by local voters there in January. If a second LNG facility is still needed, discussions should then turn to how to accommodate the terminal, and, possibly more commercial development in the future, while preserving some of the island for recreation use.