Last autumn, I read a front-page story in the BDN reporting that the state government was soliciting suggestions from citizens on how the state might save money. I wrote to my state senator and almost immediately received a very encouraging reply that included a commitment to advance my suggestion.

I waited a couple months and heard nothing back. By chance I got to know another state legislator, not representing my district, and shared my idea with her. She promised to inquire because she apparently felt my idea had merit. She waited six weeks before getting a reply from the responsible state official and then immediately forwarded his reply to me.

The idea I offered is an example, I believe, of how a state might “go green” and help the state budget.

I suggested that next to the sign on I-95 as you enter Maine from the south that boasts, “Maine, the way life should be,” an additional sign be placed, reading: “Maine does not mow the grass in the I-95 median because we care about our environment and our budget.”

When I proffered this idea, I had not an inkling of what is currently being spent mowing the median grass on I-95. I suspected it was a bundle, and I further suspected that thousands upon thousands of gallons of gasoline were being used and as a result emitting dangerous carbon gases into the air.

Now I have learned from Department of Transportation Commissioner David Cole, through a responsive Maine state legislator, that “mowing along the interstate is presently costing between $50 and $70 per acre” and mowing on all roads statewide costs the state between $800,000 and $1 million per year.” Given the rapid hike in gas prices, it is probably safe to assume that the higher figures capture what Maine spends today to mow highway grass. (We could nail the number down if the DOT commissioner had provided the acreage figure for the I-95 median.)

The commissioner defended current mowing practices on safety grounds – keeping trees from growing and obstructing the vision of motorists, reducing fire hazards, providing emergency vehicles better access when traffic accidents occur – and on aesthetic grounds. He added, I am depressed to report, that herbicides are also being used to keep vegetation in the I-95 median under control. Commissioner Cole further reported that in recent years the department has tried to control costs by mowing less frequently. Pun intended, Commissioner Cole’s response to the legislator is a classic case of a bureaucrat defending his turf.

Nowhere in his comments do I read anything about the need to perform a cost-benefit analysis that turns on sensitivity to environmental concerns, to wit, whether mowing contributes to greenhouse gases and the use of herbicides pollutes our aquifers. Nor do I read anything about what is not being done to improve our roads because of the cost of mowing, e.g., repairing potholes, strengthening bridges, and improving irrigation and run-off. Nor do I see any indication that the commissioner is aware that the same amount of energy being used to mow grass might better be spent heating the homes of low-income Mainers.

In brief, I am not convinced that the status quo on mowing I-95 is either environmentally healthy or fiscally sound. Limited resources require rethinking how the state spends tax dollars, and environmental degradation, which proceeds apace, requires that the state rethink its mowing and herbicide practices, and perhaps, just perhaps, lead the nation in conserving our wealth and our planet.

Roger W. Bowen lives in Prospect Harbor.