HR-4800-119
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Clay Higgins (R-LA)
What it does
This bill would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to make certain freshwater fisheries — specifically red swamp crawfish and white river crawfish — eligible for federal fishery resource disaster relief. It would add "infrastructure-related causes" (such as failures or operations of flood control systems, spillways, levees, and diversions) as a recognized trigger for disaster declarations. It would also require that disaster assessments for these crawfish fisheries include data on hydrological conditions, water quality, and flooding or drought impacts.
Who benefits
Commercial crawfish fishers in Louisiana and other Gulf Coast states who harvest red swamp and white river crawfish and whose livelihoods may be disrupted by infrastructure failures. Subsistence fishers who rely on crawfish for food. Crawfish processors, distributors, and related supply chain workers. Rural communities economically dependent on the crawfish industry. State governments that could access federal disaster funds for affected fisheries. Aquaculture operators raising crawfish in managed ponds.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers who would bear the cost of expanded disaster relief eligibility. The federal budget more broadly, as the pool of eligible disaster claims would grow. Marine and anadromous fishery stakeholders who currently receive disaster relief may face increased competition for a finite pool of disaster funds, though the bill includes a rule of construction explicitly preserving their eligibility. Federal agencies (NOAA/NMFS) that would take on additional administrative responsibilities for freshwater fishery disaster assessments.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Magnuson-Stevens Act's disaster relief framework was designed for marine and anadromous fisheries, leaving freshwater commercial fishers — including Louisiana's crawfish industry, which generates over $300 million annually — without a federal safety net when infrastructure failures devastate their livelihoods. They contend that events like the operation of Mississippi River flood control structures have caused documented, measurable harm to crawfish populations and that fishers harmed by government-operated infrastructure deserve the same relief available to other commercial fishers.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the Magnuson-Stevens Act was specifically structured to govern marine and anadromous fisheries in federal waters, and that extending it to purely intrastate freshwater species like crawfish stretches the law beyond its intended scope and Commerce Clause foundation. They contend that freshwater fishery disasters are more appropriately addressed through state programs or existing federal disaster mechanisms, and that expanding eligibility without a defined funding cap could create an open-ended federal liability for a broad category of infrastructure-related events that are difficult to attribute and verify.