HR-9673-119
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Mike Ezell (R-MS)
What it does
The MARA Act of 2026 would direct NOAA to create a formal Office of Aquaculture within the National Marine Fisheries Service and establish a program to issue permits for commercial-scale offshore fish farming demonstration projects in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (3–200 nautical miles offshore). It would also create Aquaculture Centers of Excellence at minority-serving institutions, historically Black colleges and universities, Tribal colleges, and similar schools to develop aquaculture curricula and workforce training. Additionally, it would commission independent studies by the National Academies of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office to assess the environmental and regulatory viability of a permanent U.S. offshore aquaculture industry.
Who benefits
Prospective offshore aquaculture operators and investors who would gain a clear federal permitting pathway. Domestic seafood consumers who may benefit from increased supply and potentially lower prices. Coastal fishing communities and workers seeking new employment opportunities. Minority-serving institutions, HBCUs, Tribal colleges, and Alaska Native-serving institutions that would receive aquaculture curriculum grants. Traditional fishing industry participants (commercial and recreational fishermen) who are explicitly prioritized in permit applications if they were harmed by COVID-19 or natural disasters. Coastal states and Tribal nations that gain formal consultation and review rights. Onshore support businesses such as hatcheries, nurseries, and seafood processors. U.S. territories including Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the CNMI, and the U.S. Virgin Islands whose fishing communities are explicitly included.
Who is hurt
Wild-capture commercial fishermen who may face competition from farmed seafood, reduced market prices, or displacement from fishing grounds near aquaculture structures. Recreational fishermen who may lose access to ocean areas occupied by offshore facilities. Environmental and conservation organizations concerned about ecosystem impacts, species escapes, pollution, and wildlife entanglement. Foreign seafood exporters (particularly from Asia and Norway) who currently supply the majority of U.S. seafood imports and could face reduced market share. Taxpayers who would fund the new Office of Aquaculture, grant programs, and commissioned studies. Marine mammals, sea turtles, and other protected species that may face increased entanglement risk, though the bill includes mitigation requirements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the United States imports roughly 70–85% of its seafood, running a seafood trade deficit of over $17 billion annually, while its Exclusive Economic Zone — the largest in the world — remains almost entirely unused for commercial aquaculture. They contend the bill takes a cautious, science-first approach by requiring demonstration projects, independent studies, and strict environmental compliance before any permanent industry is authorized, and that it would create well-paying jobs in coastal and underserved communities while reducing dependence on foreign supply chains that may not meet U.S. environmental or labor standards.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that offshore fish farming poses documented risks to wild fish populations through disease transmission, genetic contamination from escapes, and localized water quality degradation — risks that demonstration projects may not fully capture at commercial scale. They contend that the bill's permitting structure, including a provision that automatically approves applications if NOAA fails to act within 90 days, could allow projects to proceed without adequate environmental review, and that concentrating aquaculture development near existing fishing grounds could displace traditional fishing communities whose livelihoods the bill claims to protect.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate offshore aquaculture in the Exclusive Economic Zone rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which has historically supported broad federal regulation of ocean resources and interstate seafood markets. Because the bill explicitly grants NOAA new rulemaking and permitting authority over a previously unregulated domain, post-Loper Bright (2024) courts would independently assess whether NOAA's implementing regulations stay within the statutory boundaries Congress sets here, rather than deferring to the agency's own interpretation.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (NOAA/Commerce) gains new permitting and rulemaking authority; checks include mandatory public comment periods, coastal state and Tribal consultation rights under the Coastal Zone Management Act, independent oversight by the GAO and National Academies, annual congressional budget reporting, and judicial review of agency permitting decisions.
Historical precedent
The National Aquaculture Act of 1980 established a national aquaculture policy and development plan but did not create an offshore permitting system; no prior federal law has established a commercial-scale offshore aquaculture permitting regime in the U.S. EEZ.