Time is running out for the Alaska Coastal Management Program, a system of coordinating development among state, federal, and local entities in waters and lands along the longest coastline in the United States.

The 32-year-old program will die on July 1 unless the Alaska Legislature agrees to breathe new life into it. The last attempt to do so failed in the House, May 14, on a 20-to-15 vote – one shy of what is needed for passage in the 40-member body.

Since then, talks between House and Senate leaders have yet to produce a compromise; although, there is a strong desire among many legislators to find a solution. Ideas range from extending the current program one more year to setting up a new one that may last up to six years before coming before the legislature again for renewal.

Advocates of a one-year extension say this could allow the legislature time next session to craft a deal that will balance responsible mining, timber, oil and gas development – or building a deep-water port in the Arctic or municipal water and sewer systems, for that matter – with the intense interest of local residents who desire to have a say in how those projects are done and how they may affect fishing, hunting, subsistence, or the environment.

Those who seek a longer-term solution say we are so close to reaching an agreement that it’s best to seize the moment and get it done now.

So what’s the hang-up?

Legislators seem to agree that it would be a good idea to create an advisory board to provide input on coastal policy. There’s also agreement on authorizing the state to consider how those projects may affect subsistence fishing and hunting. However, there’s disagreement on whether to allow board members to serve at the pleasure of the governor or to restrict the chief executive’s power so that he or she only may remove a person for neglect of duty, incompetence, poor attendance, misconduct, or failure to contribute to the board’s work.

Another major sticking point is how to balance local knowledge with scientific evidence when weighing how development may occur in a coastal area. The House version would allow local knowledge that is not contradicted by scientific evidence. The Senate would let the state resolve any conflicts between local knowledge and scientific evidence by weighing the relative strengths of each.

If the program expires, roughly $2.5 million a year in federal funds for state and local planning efforts would dry up. Gone, too, would be 33 state jobs, of which 22 are in Juneau. Since the end of May, workers have been winding down operations and have stopped funding to coastal districts. If the legislature were to authorize continuation of the program beyond July 1, great effort would be required to get it running again at full strength – a task which I am confident the administration is up to doing.

We have shown that agreement is possible. On April 15, the House passed a bill that won unanimous support. All 40 House members supported it. This was the product of extensive work of the House Resources Committee which revised a governor’s bill that had a six-year program extension to something that did considerably more than that and which solicited hours and hours of testimony and support from the administration, coastal districts, and the industry.

There’s still time to find a solution to the current impasse.

There certainly is the will among many legislators to do so. The trick is to find enough support for an idea that wins 40 votes needed for the legislature to call itself into a special session to take up a compromise and at least 21 votes in the House and 11 votes in the Senate to approve it.