In his book “The Wisdom of the Bullfrog,” retired four-star Adm. William McCraven writes, “Sooner or later the actions of every leader will be scrutinized … there are three questions that should be applied to every decision and action: Is it ethical, legal and moral. Ethical — does it follow the rules? Legal — does it follow the law? And moral — does it follow what you know to be right?”

McCraven emphasizes that bad decisions are not justifiable even when rationalized as being “for the greater good.” The Nordic Aquafarms saga in Belfast is a notable example of an attempt to use “the ends to try to justify the means” when the ends are not justifiable.

Beginning in 2018 and for seven years after, Nordic Aquafarms, two governors of different parties, local, state and federal regulatory agencies, the Belfast City Council and all their respective attorneys and advisors failed in every aspect of what should have been ethical, legal and moral decisions — decisions for which they are accountable and that should be explained to the public.

As has been amply demonstrated in the courts, the public hearings of the Environmental Protection Agency and in multiple press reports, the persons and entities listed above colluded, bullied, misled, prevaricated and demeaned individuals, organizations and concerned citizens, all to protect a project that falsely promised jobs, wealth and environmental benefit. Even in Nordic’s recent notice of withdrawal from the project, the same subsequently disproven claims relating to “the greater public good” persist, as though the original advertisement was just slightly rewritten in retrospect.

Especially egregious was Nordic’s malicious attempt to steal privately owned property and a conservation area for which Nordic, and its counsel, knew in advance Nordic had no claim or right to use.

When Nordic’s direct attempt to misappropriate this land failed in the Law Court, Nordic and the city of Belfast attempted to use eminent domain to take that same private land (including land outside the City’s c. 1813 boundary) for Nordic’s use and benefit, under the pretextual guise of making a public park (under which Nordic could lay its pipes and upon which it could build an industrial pump house).

Nordic’s proposed use of this parcel was in direct violation of a deeded use restriction that the Law Court determined in February 2023 was reasonable, runs with the land, is binding on successors of the 1946 grantee, and is enforceable by holders of land benefited by the “residential purposes only” servitude on this parcel in 1946.

Every claim of public and environmental benefit was inflated or false; every promise Nordic and politicians made promoting this project was hollow and misleading. Sadly, this project did not fail because it was environmentally damaging — it failed because Nordic proposed to build its project on land it did not own and had no right to use.

Even though it is now clear our community would have been far worse had Nordic’s and its allies’ plans come to fruition, it likely would have been permitted to build this environmentally disastrous project — spewing 7.7 million gallons of wastewater a day into Penobscot Bay —  if it had not tried to build its project on someone else’s land.

The Nordic affair should be a warning to others who would do the same, but I am pessimistic. Nordic and its promoters and supporters just happened to be particularly inept and were caught by exceptional diligence and hard work by concerned citizens. How many other similar schemes locally and nationally will be planned and succeed because the awareness and wherewithal to resist will not be present or sufficient?