Could the unique confluence of weather-related factors (hot/strong/sustained winds, low humidity, long-term cycles of drought/dry vegetation, high population density, etc.), responsible for the human/economic tragedy in California, occur in Maine and impact our future economic development? Highly improbable. Why? Southern California “is a completely different climate zone … a desert by definition most years” (Donald Dumont/NOAA Federal). Although all these same zonal factors together are absent in our state, should the California tragedy be a “wake-up call” to closely examine our own plans to prepare for: record-setting hottest years, more strong variability in precipitation over shorter time periods (with raging wildfires), more violent hurricanes, torrential rains and enhanced coastal/inland flooding? Answer: Yes.

Why? Five of the 10 hottest years in Maine’s recorded history have occurred from 2000–2024, coupled with vacillating wet/dry precipitation cycles (Roger Griswold/WMTW/Channel 8; Donald Dumont/NOAA Federal). It should be quite apparent, despite ever-present denials, that global warming/climate change are no longer scientific mysteries, but forces to be understood in the context of economic development/revenue generation, challenging our ability to find creative solutions/options.

In Maine, could future economic development/revenue enhancement be limited by these climate-related mitigation strategies? In other words, could drought/wildfires/flood damage influence the direction/scope of future development projects? Maybe. Among these limiting factors: the prevalence of more severe storms (due to increased ocean temperatures); and prolonged periods of drought (alterations in wind, moisture, and heat/cold patterns). The common denominators are water (namely, too little or too much) and carbon dioxide/methane.

With respect to reducing carbon dioxide/methane concentrations, on a macroeconomic development level, Maine has introduced solutions/options predominately focused on reduction of said gases, by utilization of electric vehicles, installation of wind/solar farms and increasing the construction of energy-efficient homes. Could more be accomplished at this macro level? Answer: Yes.

One solution: implementation of better, efficient and more widespread public transportation systems, utilizing electric buses, further reducing our carbon footprint. Additionally, designing future communities, where housing/markets/shops/services are within close proximity/walking distance, similar to European models, thereby reducing use of personal vehicles. Further, new strategies to improve/manage traffic/pedestrian flow patterns would aid in reducing greenhouse gases (Ryan Gordon/Maine Geological Survey). Lastly, carbon capture and sequestration technologies, intended to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from large industrial sources, could be introduced state-wide.

What about too little or too much water? In Maine, with the potential for future severe/flash droughts, specific attention must be focused on conserving groundwater in general, and well-water in particular. On average, Maine possesses adequate supplies of potable water. However, caution must be exercised when discussing the storage/utilization of water contained within two types of aquifers, namely, sand/gravel and bedrock aquifers. The former has a greater capacity to store water than the latter (Ryan Gordon/MGS). Therefore, in coastal communities drawing the majority of their potable water from bedrock aquifers, coupled with increasing periods of drought, microeconomic development plans must employ a strategy where emphasis is placed on generating revenue not from single-family home construction, but from sources less dependent on groundwater (“Moratorium on subdivision development needed,” Harpswell Anchor, August 2021). Are there other possibilities? Answer: Yes.

Coastal communities could explore possible options, such as wind/solar farms, aqua farms, building of telecommunication towers, incentives to establish shops/stores/cafes/services and creating tourist attractions as an offset to building single-family homes, which draw water from drought-prone wells.

Are there consequences for too much water (flooding)? Yes. Decline in property values/revenue base, higher insurance rates, destruction of homes/businesses and ecological damage. Are there solutions? Answer: Yes.

Careful planning, which supports robust infrastructures and governmental mitigation strategies. With California as an example of what can suddenly go astray, state/federal offices, such as Maine Geological Survey, Maine Municipal Planning Assistance Program, NOAA Federal, must continue renewing their efforts to mitigate against water shortages (concomitant with wildfires) and damage due to severe flooding.

Are there factors limiting the micro/macroeconomic development of Maine and its ability to generate appropriate revenue levels? No. What is required, however, to provide adequate amounts of groundwater and to defend against severe flooding is the collaboration between local, state and federal agencies to create solutions and adoptable options to mitigate against these factors. Economic development and protecting our natural resources must coexist together.

So, in a not-too-distant future, water will replace oil as the “new” gold. This new gold will drive Maine’s farming, fishing, forestry, craft brewing and tourist industries. Therefore, the “time” to prepare for this change is now — not when this new gold is rationed and scarce.

Dr. John M. Mishler is a former Professor of Basic Life Sciences, Medicine, and Pharmacology and Associate Vice Chancellor for Research at the University of Missouri. Sigrid R.E. Fischer-Mishler is a former medical/radiological technologist. The couple lives in Harpswell.