Re: Kevin Miller’s March 22 article “Public land becomes epicenter in state fight”:

The Maine Constitution, Article IX, Section 23 states: “State park land, public lots or other real estate held by the state for conservation or recreation purposes and designated by legislation implementing this section may not be reduced or its use substantially altered except on the vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each House.”

All public lands held for conservation and public recreation have been so designated under 12 MRSA 598-A.

The questions that must be answered are:

n Does managing Maine’s public lands for commercial timber harvesting instead of sustainable old-growth land management constitute a substantially altered use of lands held for conservation or recreational purposes, as defined under Maine’s constitution?

n Does it require a two-thirds vote in both houses, for each lot under consideration, to ratify commercial timber harvesting as a newly allowed use?

To gather insight into the state’s long-term vision for allowable uses of our public lands, one must look no further than L.D. 146: the proposed rules for implementing Maine’s new metallic mining statute.

During Feb. 25 public testimony on L.D. 146, Environment and Natural Resources Committee members said that the state already has the right to mine public lands under 12 MRSA Section 549-B. If passed, L.D. 146 would allow for mining of lands acquired pursuant to referendum, public reserve lots and other public lands.

Again, is metallic mining a substantially altered use of public lands held for conservation or recreation purposes, as defined by our state constitution?

It is time that the Maine Attorney General’s Office and Maine Supreme Judicial Court weighed in on this important constitutional matter, as it applies to the public’s versus the state’s rights over the use of Maine’s public lands.

Lew Kingsbury

Pittston

Copy the Story Link