The Marion Marine Resources Commission met on August 2 to review the final draft of its updated aquaculture regulations for recommendation to the Select Board, but not without some debate over whether to make a tweak for clarification’s sake.
That tweak, proposed to delineate between existing aquaculture grant holders and new grant holders where it concerns applying for a license to an abandoned site, will not be part of what the Select Board will likely review at its August 16 meeting.
Shellfish Officer Adam Murphy told the MRC that the Select Board will decide what level of grandfathering it will do.
“The regulations today are for new aquaculturists, not for existing aquaculturists; you’re reading it as the new grant holder,” he said. “But somebody who had a grant previously, we’re still going to give them an opportunity to grow their business. … If something becomes available, they already have one license, so we’re not going to issue two.”
When MRC Chairman Vin Malkoski suggested adding a line to clarify that “this applies to new grant holders,” Murphy balked on any further edits.
“Any substantial changes, we’re going to have to table this ’til the fall,” he said. “I don’t have time over the month of August … if the [commission] wants to do it, that’s absolutely fine with me.”
Harbormaster Isaac Perry attempted to clarify Murphy’s point. “We’re only talking about, if a space becomes available … I think that’s what Adam was referring to; anyone applying new as opposed to an existing would be treated differently as the bulk of the regulations go.”
What Malkoski introduced in the discussion as “clean copy” was admittedly imperfect according to discoveries pointed out by Vice Chairman Toby Burr while reviewing the document. No one debated Burr’s points, only the question as to the value of continuing the editing process.
MRC member Peter Borsari believes that the priority needs to be on getting the regulations into the hands of the Select Board since its members, with legal counsel’s advice, will make their own revisions. “Let’s get our job done,” said Borsari, identifying the document as viable and acknowledging the Select Board’s authority. “But let’s finish the doggone job [or] we’ll never get out of here.”
Member Joe Guard agreed, but others, including Malkoski, believed that the one clarification was worth making, at least until a further complication with the suggested edit was realized.
The commission voted 5-2 to recommend the new regulations with Malkoski’s proposed addition, which was later rescinded. In the interest of achieving a consensus, he asked Burr and Scott Cowell, the two members who cast dissenting votes, to discuss their objections.
Reiterating his interest in pushing forward the regulations despite his own ‘nay’ vote, Burr’s objection was of a big-picture nature.
“I believe that these regulations came about because of Shea Doonan,” he said, identifying the former license holder who in 2020 was determined to be in violation of existing regulations, and his site was shut down as a result. “We’re not punishing the bad guy, we’re punishing the good guy, and I don’t think this is a way to run a government. Someone polluted a shellfish bed, and so now we’re going to shut all the shellfish beds.
“The second issue that is on my mind,” Burr continued, “I believe government should be by the people and for the people, so the people who are most affected by this are two and three or four people. It’s a tiny number. … We’ve got pages of regulations, and people who have been doing this for years should be listened to. One of them flat out told us she probably isn’t going to apply for a permit because of the new regulations. … I don’t think these regulations by themselves would drive them out, but when you pile too many things…”
Focusing on costs, Cowell called the regulations “too restrictive for someone starting out, and too cost prohibitive.” He believes the issues addressed by the stricter regulations are already covered by a general statute.
Malkoski said he views the Doonan situation “as a wakeup call” to put regulations in place that could save the town on future legal fees.
Murphy offered his own clarification of the question about abandoned sites, explaining that existing grant holders can apply for them.
“If they don’t already have the 3 acres, the way the regulations are written, they can apply up to 3 acres, but they have to do it in one consecutive area. Just because you have a site doesn’t mean they’re going to get the next one.”
All existing grant holders for aquaculture sites in Marion Harbor are presently limited to a half-acre plot.
Borsari suggested that the MRC forward the regulations to the Select Board with notations of the dissenting votes with comments from those voters. Malkoski called it an excellent idea.
The MRC’s next scheduled meeting is Monday, August 16, at 7:00 pm via Zoom.
Marion Marine Resources Commission
By Mick Colageo