Aquaculture bill raises concerns for the environment and the Public Trust
Mar 13, 2017
Senator Tom Tiffany recently revived a special interest bill for the aquaculture—otherwise known as fish farming—industry in Senate Bill 95. This year’s version removed some of the more concerning exemptions from our state wetland protection laws (you can find more from the Wisconsin Wetlands Association about wetlands issues in this bill through their comment memo and testimony). However, this bill continues to be a blatant giveaway to local special interests in his district at the expense of one of the state’s highest quality trout streams.
The key difference between our state’s natural fisheries and fish farms is private ownership. A fish farm may raise fish to sell directly to market, or to operate a private fishery open to those who pay a fee. Midwest Environmental Advocates opposes Senator Tiffany’s effort to give our state’s waters and fish from those waters to private corporations. We identified problems with this bill last year (and board member Dave Clausen wrote about it in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel), many of which remain, as explained below.
Natural Bodies of Water Used to Expand Existing Fish Farms
Springs are critically important to trout streams and other fisheries that rely on cold water from underground. This bill allows existing fish farms to expand and appropriate these and other natural water bodies for their own profit.
Here is the DNR’s comment on a similar provision in last year’s bill: “Chapter 29.733 regulates the use of natural water bodies for fish farming. Sections 1-8 of the bill expand the category of natural waterbodies that may be used as part of a fish farm to also include springs that provide water to an artificially constructed pond. Under current law waters of the state may be used for fish farming only if the water body is a freeze-out pond, a pre-existing fish rearing facility, or a waterbody for which the DNR has issued a construction permit. The legislation also creates an exemption from state law from needing a permit for someone who previously had a permit to raise fish in a natural waterbody, provided they have not modified or expanded their facility.
“Department staff have mapped over 10,800 springs across the state. Expansion of aquaculture use of headwater spring habitats could impact state trout fisheries and stream water temperature, quality and habitat.”
Opening the Lower Wisconsin State Riverway to Fish Farms
This provision is a new addition to the bill that would allow new fish farms in the lower Wisconsin State Riverway by grouping it with traditional agriculture. The bill requires these fish farms to comply with rules for traditional agriculture, but these rules were not designed to prevent water quality impacts from fish farms.
Allowing DNR to take fish and fish eggs from state waters to give them to private fish farms
This provision was not in last year’s bill and we don’t yet have any comment from the DNR, but we hope staff will weigh in. The bill allows DNR to give fish eggs taken from waters of the state to fish farms as long as some of the mature fish are stocked in public waters. We’re still examining the potential impact of this provision, and look forward to clarification by legislators.
Exempts an existing fish farm in Langlade County from requirements designed to protect aquatic life and ensure there is continuous flow to the stream below the farm’s dam
After opposition to this private diversion of state waters, Senator Tiffany made it applicable only to existing fish farms in Langlade County—his district. There are many high-quality trout streams in that area that could be affected. Even if the new bill has a more limited impact statewide, we oppose any effort to privatize state waters.
Here are the DNR’s comments on a similar provision last year: “The bill provides an exemption from the requirement in sec. 31.34, Wis. Stats. that mandates all dams on navigable streams must release a minimum of 25% low flow at all times. The exemption would be for any dam in an aquaculture facility where the water is returned to the navigable stream.
“This change could have impacts on stretches of streams that could become de-watered when the outfall (return flow point) is a distance downstream of the intake (diversion point). If the intent is for the exemption to be unlimited on how much of the navigable stream could potentially be impacted by the lack of flow, it could potentially leave some watercourses short of the water needed to remain viable. Without an adequate minimum flow, adequate mixing may not occur which could lead to water quality impacts and degradation of the water resource downstream.”
Contact your legislators to tell them to keep Wisconsin’s trout streams and other waters public.