SB177 would direct the Hawaii Department of Agriculture’s Division of Animal Industry to create a formal assessment and approval process for importing and moving aquatic livestock in the state. The bill defines “aquatic livestock” to include domestic and non-domestic fish, crustaceans, and mollusks raised for food, restorative activities, or similar commercial purposes, and adds related definitions for “biocontainment” and “biological aquatic risk.” It also requires the aquaculture program to develop a risk-based framework that categorizes species by the likelihood and consequences of establishing feral populations, along with biocontainment standards for physical and operational controls.
The bill further authorizes rulemaking for pre-arrival disease testing, entry and post-arrival inspections, and quarantine or depopulation when necessary. In developing the framework, the division must consider USDA standards, current aquaculture policy issues, industry best practices, and protection of indigenous species. The measure also includes an appropriation from general revenues for fiscal years 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 to carry out the framework development, although the dollar amount is left blank in the text provided.
In practical terms, SB177 would expand and formalize state oversight of aquaculture imports and movement, affecting the Department of Agriculture, aquaculture operators, and anyone importing aquatic species into Hawaii. It would add new statutory direction to chapter 141, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and create a more explicit biosecurity and risk-management structure for aquatic livestock, with potential implications for disease prevention, invasive species control, and commercial aquaculture operations.
The available discussion and voting history suggest broad support for the bill. It passed the Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee 4-0 with amendments and later passed the Senate Ways and Means Committee 13-0 unamended. No committee transcript objections are provided, but the bill’s structure indicates the main policy emphasis is on protecting native ecosystems while still supporting aquaculture development.
The most likely points of contention are the regulatory burden on aquaculture businesses, the scope of quarantine or depopulation authority, and how strictly the state should control imports of aquatic species. At the same time, the bill’s supporters appear to prioritize biosecurity, disease control, and protection of indigenous species over less regulated import practices.
SB177 would amend Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 141 by adding a new aquatic livestock import assessment and approval process, expanding the aquaculture program’s duties, and requiring the Division of Animal Industry to develop risk-based rules and biocontainment standards. It would also create new statutory definitions for aquatic livestock, biocontainment, and biological aquatic risk, and direct the department to consider federal standards, industry practices, and indigenous species protection when designing the framework. The bill includes an appropriation for implementation, making it a policy-and-administration measure that would increase state oversight of aquaculture imports and movement.
The bill appears to have been received positively in committee, with unanimous votes in both the Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee and the Senate Ways and Means Committee. The available record shows no recorded opposition in the votes provided and no committee transcript excerpts indicating controversy. Overall, the sentiment suggests support for strengthening aquaculture biosecurity and formalizing state oversight while continuing to promote the industry.
The main policy tension is between supporting aquaculture development and imposing stronger biosecurity controls. Potential concerns include the cost and administrative burden of new testing, inspection, quarantine, and biocontainment requirements for industry participants, as well as the breadth of state authority to require depopulation of aquatic animals when necessary. On the other side, proponents are focused on preventing disease spread, limiting escaped or feral populations, and protecting Hawaii’s indigenous species and marine ecosystems.