63 



Even if this ambiguity in the Act is corrected as we propose, we remain concerned 

 about nonprofit efforts to rehabilitate or enhance publicly owned fish and shellfish 

 stocks, if these efforts are not subject to' comprehensive environmental oversight. As 

 discussed above, any use of aquaculture to enhance wild fish may present signifi- 

 cant environmental risks. Furthermore, the 1980 Act should bed amended specifi- 

 cally to require decisions to encourage that the use of aquaculture technology in the 

 rehabilitation and enhancement of aquaculture facilities take into account any asso- 

 ciated environmental risks. 

 Accordingly, we recommend amending 16 U.S.C. 2804(aX3) to read as follows: 

 "(3) encourage the implementation of aquacultural technology — 



"(A) in the rehabilitation of publicly owned fish and shellfish stocks by 

 federal or state agencies (including rehabilitation and enhancement by pri- 

 vate nonprofit enterprises operating under contract to and the direct super- 

 vision of federal or state agencies with responsibility for ecosystem protec- 

 tion), and 



"(B) in the development of private commercial aquaculture; 

 "provided that any such implementation of aquacultural technology is expected 

 not to result in significant ecological risks, such as undesirable changes in the 

 genetic makeup ofwild fish and shellfish stocks or the introduction of an exotic 

 species not already present in the ecosystem." 

 The related finding, 16 U.S.C. 2801(5), should be qualified similarly. 



DISASTER ASSISTANCE 



S. 1288 would amend the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, 

 7 U.S.C. 1421, to specifically make aquaculture producers eligible for federal disas- 

 ter assistance. As discussed below, this amendment would be both poor fiscal policy 

 and poor environmental policy, and we recommend that, to the extent that Congress 

 decioes aquaculture should receive federal protection against weather-related risks, 

 aquaculture should be covered by crop insurance rather than disaster assistance. 

 Moreover, the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry recently passed the 

 Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (S. 2095), which would reform both fed- 

 eral crop insurance and disaster assistance programs for agricultural producers, in- 

 cluding, specifically, those engaged in aquaculture. We urge that insurance or as- 

 sistance for aquaculture be addressed through this comprehensive legislation, rather 

 than ad hoc in general aquaculture legislation. 



USDA currently offers farmers both crop insurance and disaster assistance as aid 

 when crops are lost or damaged. Under tne Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1980, 7 

 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., crop insurance is supposed to be the primary form of loss pro- 

 tection for farmers. Crop insurance is fiscally preferable to disaster assistance be- 

 cause under the crop insurance program farmers must pay at least part of the costs 

 of insurance protection (about two-thirds of the costs over the past decade). In con- 

 trast, disaster assistance is free to recipients. 



Although crop insurance is available for many crops and premiums are heavily 

 subsidized by the federal government, no more than 40 percent of eligible acres have 

 ever been insured under the program. Congress, aware of this low participation 

 rate, has safeguarded farmers against losses by passing ad hoc disaster assistance, 

 legislation most years since 1983. Such disaster assistance has come at enormous 

 cost to the federal government. For example. Congress spent $7.7 billion on disaster 

 assistance between 1987 and 1993, versus $5.3 billion on crop insurance. 



A number of experts believe that disaster assistance has promoted farming in en- 

 vironmentally sensitive areas where farming otherwise might not be economically 

 justified. For example, fioodplain and areas with highly erodible soils may be farmed 

 because producers know they are likely to be indemnified by Congress for losses. 

 Similarly, federal insurance and disaster relief programs for coastal homeowners 

 have promoted extensive coastal development that otherwise would be financially 

 extremely risky for homeowners. Disaster assistance for aquaculture could easily 

 promote similar phenomena, such as the establishment of marine aquaculture facili- 

 ties in storm-prone coastal areas, and also subsequently the construction of related 

 jetties, sea walls, and other protective structures that may directly and indirectly 

 damage natural ecosystems and other property by disrupting normal hydrology. 

 Federal crop insurance for aquaculture producers would be less likely to promote 

 such development than would disaster assistance, because producers relying on crop 

 insurance would at least bear part of the costs of disaster protection. 



The proposed Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (S. 2095) is intended 

 to make crop insurance the dominant form of crop loss protection, in part by appar- 

 ently requiring the approvals of greater than majorities in Congress to pass future 

 ad hoc emergency relief legislation. Under S. 2095, disaster assistance would still 



