October is National Seafood Month and the fish on your plate might not be coming from where you think.

The U.S. imports 90% of the seafood it consumes. Offshore fish farming has come to dominate wild harvest in recent decades, with farmed salmon making up 80% of global salmon supply. Oregon does not have regulations to stop the practice.

Johnny Fishmonger, executive director of the group Wild Salmon Nation, said legislation proposed in Congress could make fish farming more prevalent in federal waters. He compared large-scale fish farming practices to dairy and poultry farms.

"It's like on land -- concentrated animal feedlot operations, CAFO -- so concentrated aquaculture feedlot operations where the fish are farmed intensely in high densities," Fishmonger explained.

Fishmonger noted sea lice infestations are common and devastating problems for fish farms. The AQUAA Act would allow aquaculture companies three miles offshore in federal waters. The SEAfood Act would create aquaculture assessment and grant programs. Supporters of large aquaculture operations said they are needed to feed the world's population.

Fishmonger stressed the aquaculture companies wanting to operate in federal waters are not mom-and-pop operations.

"One of the real distressing parts of that is there's no such thing as a small, family owned fish farm, except for like trout farms on land," Fishmonger contended. "Every farm in the ocean has been taken over by huge, multinational corporations."

Rob Seitz, a fishing boat captain, who opened South Bay Wild Fish House in Astoria, said there is other legislation to boost his line of work, the Domestic Seafood Production Act. The bill would require congressional approval for offshore aquaculture operations and invest in local fishing communities. Seitz argued fewer fish farms would be good for the environment.

"Wild catch fishing has the lowest carbon footprint of any form of food production," Seitz pointed out. "All of our fisheries in this country are sustainable pretty much now."


get more stories like this via email

Minnesota is credited for having strong wetland protections. But the research community warns the growing presence of factory farms in the Midwest makes it harder to shield these natural resources.

A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists says 30 million acres of wetlands in the Upper Midwest are at risk of destruction by industrial agriculture and other heavy industries.

The authors said the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to strip some federal protections from wetlands accelerates the potential loss.

The Research Director for the Union's Food & Environment program Stacy Woods said because of the role wetlands play in flood mitigation, states in this region are likely to have a harder time limiting damage from a major rain event.

"We know that flooding is a significant issue," said Woods. "It's expensive, and it's getting worse as the climate warms."

While Minnesota's laws might help offset some of the federal impact, the report says neighboring states like South Dakota and Iowa are more vulnerable to wetland loss.

It says priorities of the incoming Trump administration could further complicate protections - but if lawmakers can agree, there could be opportunities in the Farm Bill debate to bolster existing conservation programs.

Wetlands can capture and slow flood waters that threaten homes, but Woods pointed out they do so much more.

"They're often called nature's kidneys, because they provide such a service in cleaning our waterways," said Woods. "But when we dump so much pesticide and fertilizer, and other pollutants onto our fields, that can run off into these wetlands and really impact the wetlands' ability to clean our water."

Meanwhile, researchers say one acre of wetlands provides $745 of flood mitigation benefits to residential homes.

Without wetlands, they say homeowners and taxpayers absorb those costs through the National Flood Insurance Program.




get more stories like this via email

The most current study from the Environmental Protection Agency estimated more than 143 million Americans are at risk of drinking water tainted with PFAS chemicals, including in Texas.

Water utility companies across the country tested their drinking water for 29 different PFAS compounds. They are known as "forever chemicals," because they do not break down easily in the environment or the body.

Neil Carman, clean air program director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, said the man-made chemicals are found in everyday products.

"Nonstick pans like Teflon, also stain-resistant fabrics, like Gore-Tex and waterproof clothing," Carman outlined. "The biggest source is probably from the firefighting foam."

He pointed out when firefighters use the foam to extinguish a fire, it is left on the ground and seeps into nearby water sources.

Some supporters of President-elect Donald Trump have said they want to revoke or weaken water standards for six PFAS chemicals. According to the Environmental Working Group, it would leave nearly 46 million Americans with no protections.

The EPA said its data is not yet complete but it has already identified PFAS contamination at almost 8,900 sites nationwide, including more than 100 in Texas. Carman noted the chemicals have been linked to multiple health problems.

"They could cause cancer, they disrupt the immune system, they could interfere with pregnancies, they can cause all kinds of health effects," Carman explained. "We're still learning about them but they're not good."

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is the state agency charged with PFAS enforcement. Carman added a home water filtration system is one option for curbing some toxic chemicals.

A delegation of New Mexico lawmakers is asking the federal government to quickly resolve long-standing litigation affecting water users in the Rio Grande Basin.

In a 2013 lawsuit, Texas alleged New Mexico farmers were using groundwater previously allocated to Texas. Then in 2022, the two states reached an out-of-court agreement. But the federal government objected and a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling said government consent was needed first.

Andrew Mergen, visiting assistant clinical professor of environmental law at Harvard University, said a lot has changed since the original water compact was signed in 1939.

"This is, in some ways, about growth in New Mexico that has accelerated groundwater pumping in the Rio Grande," Mergen pointed out. "How are you going to manage that groundwater pumping in a way that the compact terms are met?"

New Mexico's U.S. Senators and Representatives have sent a letter to the Departments of Interior and Justice asking for resolution by year's end. Bergen believes it is unlikely but without it, the states and federal government must argue their case at a trial in federal court.

Mergen noted decades-old water allocations in the West were based on what was known at the time. Parties could only guess about population growth and could not anticipate the advent of more oil and gas drilling, increased groundwater crop irrigation and sustained periods of drought, all amid climate change.

"That's what makes this profoundly difficult," Mergen observed. "That's what the rub of this case is, that the compact was negotiated a long time ago. Things change. How do you account for change?"

The Rio Grande Basin is critical to agriculture, industry and the environment, providing irrigation water for nearly 2 million acres of crop and pasture land, supporting the outdoor recreation economy and providing habitat for fish and wildlife.


get more stories like this via email