Committee votes 'ought not to pass' on proposal to assert Maine sovereignty out to 12 nautical miles; asks congressional delegation and AG for review

The Joint Standing Committee on Marine Resources considered LD 553, a bill that would assert state ownership and jurisdiction over waters seaward to 12 nautical miles and direct the Attorney General to take actions to assert such sovereignty. The bill drew sharply divergent testimony at the committee’s public hearing.

DMR and the Criminal Law Advisory Council both warned that the bill raises significant legal and operational questions. The committee heard from the department and outside groups that the federal Submerged Lands Act generally grants title and primary jurisdiction over submerged lands and coastal resources to states up to three nautical miles from shore and that prior legal action limits Atlantic states’ claims beyond that baseline. The Criminal Law Advisory Council expressed concern about extending Maine’s criminal jurisdiction seaward without analysis of need or resources to enforce expanded criminal laws.

Several committee members expressed support for the policy goal — increased state control of offshore resources — but also emphasized practical limitations. Senator Martin, sponsor of the bill, said he wanted an answer from the Attorney General and the federal Commerce/NOAA leadership on whether and how such a change could proceed. Several lawmakers worried that unilateral state assertion could be preempted by federal law or could create enforcement, fiscal and interstate-management complications.

Action taken: Representative Samantha Stroud moved, and Representative Ben Gulick seconded, a motion that the committee report LD 553 as “ought not to pass.” The motion included a friendly committee instruction that legislative staff draft a letter seeking analysis and engagement by the federal delegation, the Department of Commerce/NOAA, and the Attorney General’s office to clarify legal options and potential costs. The motion passed on a voice/roll-call tally recorded in committee minutes (11 in favor, 1 opposed, 1 absent).

Why it matters: The bill is consequential because fisheries management, submerged-land title, and international/federal boundaries are closely linked; changing the state-federal balance of authority would affect fisheries enforcement, resource-management authority and potentially federal-state cooperative programs. Committee members said they preferred to seek legal and intergovernmental clarification before pursuing statutory changes.

Next steps: The committee’s formal recommendation was “ought not to pass.” Committee staff will prepare a letter to the congressional delegation and Attorney General as directed by the committee; the sponsor indicated willingness to accept a longer AG response timeline if necessary.