Summary
Our trade deficit in fisheries products second only to petroleum. As a matter of national security, it is time for us to regain control over our food supply and support offshore production of fish.
Analysis
There are seminal moments in history that define the future for decades, or even lifetimes. We don’t necessarily see them as such when they unfold. Other times, we see them for what they really are. But in historical context, they all loom very large.
The attack on Pearl Harbor galvanized U.S. resolve and thrust us into World War II. Rosa Parks launched the civil rights movement with a simple act on a bus. The falling of the Berlin Wall signaled the end of Soviet domination of eastern Europe, and the end of the Cold War. And the World Trade Center attack launched a war on terrorism.
While these events are monumental in U.S. history, a decision no less earth-shattering to the U.S. aquaculture industry is upon us—passage or rejection of the National Offshore Aquaculture Act.
This legislation would, for the first time, enable aquaculture in federal waters. To some of you, this may sound like a wild exaggeration. How could this legislation be that important? Make no mistake. It is.
As we all know, the economy we live in is global. I conclude that the U.S. is poised to either stay in the aquaculture game—aided by this offshore legislation—or we are doomed to remain a first-rate consumer nation and a third-rate producer. It pains me to admit that about the industry in which I participate and love, but here are the facts.
(1) Our trade deficit in fisheries products is ridiculously massive. Only oil is larger and higher on the list.
(2) We have declared our dependence on oil a threat to our national security. Where is the same concern and urgency about fisheries products?
(3) We live in an affluent society—one that takes exception to fish production facilities within sight of our day-to-day surroundings (The NIMBY Syndrome—Not In My Backyard). The problem is particularly keen in coastal areas, which happen to be home to a large plurality of our citizens.
(4) Man-made pollution threatens the long-term viability of coastal and near-shore production facilities.
(5) Fresh water is becoming increasingly scarce and expensive. Opportunities for development of new fish production facilities utilizing conventional flow-through or so-called “single-pass” technologies are rapidly dwindling or simply not available.
(6) Water quality restrictions on discharge from land-based facilities render some production concepts unfeasible.
(7) The points above combine to paint an aquaculture growth picture that is less than rosy if we continue to focus only on development of land-based facilities.
There are some reasons for optimism relative to land-based growth and expansion. Outdoor ponds will continue to provide a sound foundation for production here in the U.S. As water reuse systems continue to improve, they too will help us bridge gaps between production needs, water availability, and concern for our environment.
However, when you look at the big picture, real strides and a real move forward can come only if we move to offshore areas, and develop these resources thoughtfully and with long-term sustainability in mind. Failure to pass this important legislation runs counter to our spirit as Americans.
Opponents fear environmental disaster on the open ocean. But we are a can-do nation, and I say we can have our cake and eat it too—meaning we can develop aquaculture offshore to our own great economic and societal benefit, and we can do it responsibly and sustainably. This will require ingenuity and new inventions. But we are the “idea factory” of the world.
I challenge opponents of this legislation to develop better ideas. Nay-saying doesn’t cut it anymore. If you don’t like it, you must be prepared to propose an alternative solution—one that makes sense and rejects the status quo of accepting our fate as an importer. As a point of national security, we can no longer afford to rely so heavily on others for our nutritional needs. Get on board, put ideas on the table, or get out of the way.
Continue to contact your legislators and the new Secretary of Commerce in Washington and urge them to support this effort. It’s that important.
