MARA Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 14, 2026
Bottom line
The MARA Act of 2026 seeks to expand sustainable domestic offshore aquaculture by establishing a federal assessment program, streamlining permitting, investing in workforce development, and commissioning scientific and economic studies.
What it actually does
This bill directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish an assessment program for commercial-scale offshore aquaculture through demonstration projects in the exclusive economic zone. It mandates the creation of an Office of Aquaculture within NOAA, streamlines federal permitting for these projects, and establishes Aquaculture Centers of Excellence at minority-serving institutions to support workforce development. The bill also commissions studies by the Ocean Studies Board and the Government Accountability Office to inform future regulation of the industry.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill will significantly reduce the United States' seafood trade deficit, create new jobs in coastal communities, and support existing jobs and businesses within the seafood industry, including for traditional fishing participants. They contend that by establishing a science-based assessment program and promoting sustainable practices, the U.S. can safely and responsibly expand its domestic seafood supply while minimizing environmental impacts and conflicts with other ocean users.
Opponents contend
Critics may contend that even with the proposed safeguards, expanding offshore aquaculture carries inherent risks to marine ecosystems, including potential for escapes of cultured species, disease transfer to wild populations, and pollution. They might argue that the streamlining of permits could reduce environmental scrutiny and that the economic benefits may not equitably reach traditional fishing communities, potentially displacing existing uses rather than complementing them.
The bill is moderately detailed, with numerous definitions and procedural requirements. An informed reader would require a dedicated reading to grasp its full implications, but its structure makes it accessible.
Title I, Sec. 101
Establishment of Office of Aquaculture
This provision establishes an Office of Aquaculture within NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service, requiring it to have sufficient resources and regional representation. The Office is tasked with coordinating the implementation of the Act, including administering the offshore aquaculture assessment program, issuing permits, developing best management practices, conducting research, and managing industry support and grant programs.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that a dedicated Office of Aquaculture is essential for effective coordination of federal efforts, ensuring consistent policy, and providing a clear point of contact for industry and stakeholders, thereby fostering sustainable growth.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the establishment of an office for coordination, though critics might question the sufficiency of resources allocated or the balance of priorities within the office.
Tradeoffs
The provision aims to centralize and streamline federal aquaculture efforts, but its effectiveness will depend on adequate funding and the ability of the new office to balance industry development with environmental protection and other ocean uses.
Title II, Sec. 201
Offshore Aquaculture Assessment Program
This section requires NOAA to establish an assessment program within 180 days of enactment. The program's objective is to assess the viability of offshore aquaculture by examining commercial-scale facility designs, operational methods, monitoring technologies, and the risks, benefits, and costs of various aquaculture types under different environmental conditions. The Administrator must publish a report on the program's progress within five years.
Title II, Sec. 202
Permits for Commercial-Scale Demonstration Projects
This section authorizes NOAA to issue permits for commercial-scale offshore aquaculture demonstration projects. Eligibility requirements are strict, mandating the cultivation of native or historically naturalized species, minimizing harm from genetically modified organisms, preventing escapes and adverse wildlife impacts, complying with major environmental laws (Clean Water Act, ESA, MMPA, NEPA), maximizing compatibility with existing ocean uses, and minimizing the use of therapeutants. The process includes public notice, comment periods, priority consideration for certain applicants, and conditions for renewal or termination.
Title II, Sec. 203
Coordination of Permit Reviews
This section designates NOAA as the lead federal agency for providing information on federal permitting requirements for demonstration projects. It mandates coordination with various federal agencies, including the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, FDA, and Coast Guard, to simplify the permitting process. It requires these agencies to initiate a rulemaking for a unified process for initial issuance, renewal, and transfer of permits within one year of enactment, and aims for a timely response to applicants within 240 days.
Title III, Sec. 302
Aquaculture Centers of Excellence
This section establishes a grant program, to be administered by NOAA, to support minority-serving institutions, Historically Black Colleges or Universities (HBCUs), Tribal colleges or universities, and Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian-serving institutions in establishing or enhancing aquaculture curricula. These institutions would be designated 'Aquaculture Centers of Excellence.' Grant funds can be used for training in aquaculture operations, business management, natural and social science research, extension programs, and career development. The section authorizes $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030.
Title IV, Sec. 401
Ocean Studies Board Aquaculture Study
This section requires NOAA to contract with the Ocean Studies Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a comprehensive study. The study, due within five years of the assessment program's establishment, will develop the scientific basis for efficient and effective regulation of offshore aquaculture. It must identify optimal operational methods, define 'responsible offshore aquaculture feed,' assess potential adverse environmental effects (e.g., antibiotics, pollution, escapes, genetic mixing), evaluate mitigation technologies, and provide recommendations for legislative or administrative action.
The definition of 'aquaculture' explicitly excludes 'ranching' (capturing wild juvenile finfish to rear to maturity) and 'rearing and releasing cultured species for the purpose of enhancing wild populations.'
Sec. 3(4)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to precisely define the scope of a bill's application, preventing ambiguity and unintended inclusion of related but distinct activities.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this narrow definition ensures the bill focuses specifically on the controlled propagation and rearing of species within facilities, distinguishing it from practices that might have different ecological implications or regulatory needs.
Case against: Critics might argue that by excluding these activities, the bill misses an opportunity to address a broader range of marine cultivation practices or that it could create a regulatory gap for these excluded activities if they become more prevalent offshore.
Estimated impact: Limits the scope of NOAA's new assessment program and permitting authority to a specific type of aquaculture, potentially influencing the future development trajectory of the U.S. seafood industry.
Demonstration projects are required to ensure 'no intentional culture, propagation, or release of genetically modified organisms if such organisms present a material risk of harmful ecological, genetic, or disease impacts that is greater than such risk associated with conventional stock.'
Sec. 202(b)(3)
Why it matters:This phrasing attempts to provide flexibility while addressing concerns about GMOs. It's a common legislative technique to balance strict prohibitions with scientific discretion.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this provision allows for the potential future use of GMOs if scientific advancements demonstrate they pose no greater risk than conventional stock, preventing an outright ban that could stifle innovation while still prioritizing environmental safety.
Case against: Opponents might argue that the 'material risk' threshold is subjective and could be interpreted too broadly, potentially allowing GMOs into the marine environment with insufficient safeguards, given the irreversible nature of genetic contamination.
Estimated impact: Establishes a conditional allowance for genetically modified organisms in offshore aquaculture, subject to a risk assessment, which could significantly impact the types of species cultivated in the future.
The conduct of offshore aquaculture shall be considered a commercial fishing operation for purposes of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1362).
Sec. 203(g)
Why it matters:This is a technical legal classification that has significant implications but is not a primary programmatic element of the section. It's placed where it legally fits, rather than where it might draw immediate attention.
Case for: Proponents would argue that classifying offshore aquaculture as a commercial fishing operation under the MMPA provides a clear existing legal framework for managing interactions with marine mammals, ensuring consistency and leveraging established regulatory processes.
Case against: Critics might argue that aquaculture, particularly fixed offshore facilities, presents different types of risks and interactions with marine mammals than traditional fishing, and that simply fitting it into an existing framework might not adequately address these unique challenges, potentially leading to insufficient protections.
Estimated impact: Subjects offshore aquaculture operations to the specific regulations, monitoring, and mitigation requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, including provisions for incidental take and reporting.