Earlier this month, two small Maine towns went in different directions on a divisive coastal development issue. One voted against new restrictions on aquaculture. The other approved them.
It’s the latest shoe-drop in a years-long debate over how the rapidly growing industry should be regulated and how much jurisdiction towns should have over new developments in what the state considers public waters.
South Bristol
At the annual town hall meeting in South Bristol, the local school gymnasium is packed with residents. Many came to see what will happen with an article that would amend the town’s coastal water and harbor ordinance.
The measure would add restrictions to aquaculture — the farming of aquatic species for food — things like salmon, oysters, clams or seaweed.
"The big thing we're looking for here is that the town has some kind of a say," said resident Bob Emmons, who supports a half-acre cap on the size of new aquaculture operations.
The amendment would also create new local committee to address concerns that Emmons said the state Department of Marine Resources has neglected.
“If you talk to town officials in the seacoast of Maine. You'll hear about how upset they are about DMR ignores or just dismisses their complaints or concerns," he said.
But some owners of the dozen active leases in South Bristol testified that the proposed restriction would effectively kill the local industry.
Smokey McKeen of Pemaquid Oyster Company says a half-acre isn’t nearly enough space to raise oysters and make a substantial profit.
“I think prohibiting aquaculture in a town like South Bristol that's lived and worked on the water is very short sighted," McKeen said. "Aquaculture offers an opportunity for fishermen to diversify, and it offers the next generation an opportunity."
McKeen’s 3.5-acre oyster farm is in Clark’s Cove – the very place where Maine’s first aquaculture lease was issued back in 1973.
The industry has grown rapidly in the five decades since aquaculture was introduced in Maine. A 2023 University of Maine report predicted the state’s aquaculture exports to net up to $800 million in 2025.
The state now lists well over 200 active aquaculture leases on its website. Thirty-three of those leases were approved in 2025 — a 27% increase over the previous five-year average of 24.
“I think prohibiting aquaculture in a town like South Bristol that's lived and worked on the water is very short sighted... Aquaculture offers an opportunity for fishermen to diversify, and it offers the next generation an opportunity."Smokey McKeen, Pemaquid Oyster Company
For years, industry advocates have said that as climate change displaces some harvesters from lobstering and other legacy fisheries, aquaculture has become a critical tool for them to bring in other income while still working on the water
"We've got a significant number of people who have picked up that tool and are using it as a way to diversify," says Sebastian Belle, executive director of the Maine Aquaculture Association." The reality is, there is no other method for these people to make a living on the water as they move forward."
With the help of political mail sent to South Cushing Residents by the Aquaculture Association and other testimony from growers, that message seemed to resonate at the South Bristol town meeting, whose voters rejected the proposed amendment 109 to 38.
But only days later in a town just up the coast, residents overwhelmingly approved a similar measure to put limits on aquaculture projects.
Cushing
In a vote ahead of the annual town meeting, residents of Cushing passed an ordinance prohibiting aquaculture sites greater than a half-acre.
Dave Taylor, chair of the town's shellfish committee spent decades digging for clams in Cushing. At the core of his concerns around aquaculture are lost access to fishing areas in local waters and pollution from fish waste. Proponents to regulation say both are associated with what they call "industrial-scale" aquaculture.
“I’m happy about [the ordinance], I just hope it goes and everybody leaves us alone,” said Dave Taylor, chair of the town's shellfish committee. "The way I feel about the [aquaculture] is they don't want to coexist. They want what they want, and they don't care who they push out.”
Cushing is now the ninth town to adopt a model ordinance written by a group called Protect Maine's Fishing Heritage Foundation, which has also helped steer efforts to promote regulation in recent years.
The group strongly opposes large, industrial-scale aquaculture and believes the industry has done harm by displacing Maine's legacy fisheries rather than providing the transitional business model it promotes.
A video posted on the group's website show some fisherman against commercial operations because they take up space on working waterfronts.
Crystal Canney, the group's executive director, refused multiple requests for a recorded interview. In a statement she said, "unregulated growth and corporate takeovers of Maine’s aquaculture industry shifts power and profit away from the people whose livelihoods depends on clean water."
Protect Maine's Fishing Heritage Foundation also wants to see more research done on the environmental impacts of aquaculture.
“I’m happy about [the ordinance], I just hope it goes and everybody leaves us alone… The way I feel about [aquaculture] is they don't want to coexist. They want what they want, and they don't care who they push out.”David Taylor, Cushing Shellfish Committee
Last year, environmental advocates sued Cooke Aquaculture, the owner of more than a dozen salmon farms in Maine, for allegedly "creating toxic marine conditions."
The Canadian company denies this, but Canney's group said it signals a lack of oversite from state authorities.
"We need a future where the industry strengthens coastal livelihoods, protects ecosystem health, and preserves the local owner-operator model that keeps our communities thriving," Canney wrote.
Questions over jurisdiction
The major question surrounding the debate is over how much power towns actually have to impose restrictions on aquaculture.
In 2023, Director of the Bureau of Public Health and Aquaculture Kohl Kanwit said in a letter that, under state statute from 1973, the DMR has exclusive jurisdiction to lease state waters for aquaculture.
"It's no different than, for example, state public lands, where the management of those public lands are delegated to a state agency," said Sebastian Belle of the Maine Aquaculture Association.
But an attorney representing Protect Maine's Fishing Heritage says municipalities have broad home rule authority within their boundaries and that residents should get to decide what aquaculture looks like in their communities.
Lawyer Aga Dixon testified at the South Bristol town meeting that she believes towns can exert control over intertidal zones.
"If you want to know, the easiest way to do it is to actually pull up a Google map type in South Bristol, and you will see the actual boundaries of your town, which do extend into water quite far," she said.
Last year, the DMR launched an initiative aimed at improving communication channels between towns and the department on marine issues. Three upcoming public meetings on specific lease applications are listed on the department's website.
While Belle said the agency's efforts to communicate effectively engage towns, Canney said "many wild and heritage fishermen feel their voice is not welcome by DMR."
Advocates on both sides of the fight over regulatory jurisdiction acknowledge that the matter may have to be settled in court as more towns seem poised to take up the issue.
