Committee hears proposal to allow onshore finfish farming; witnesses, tribes and industry urge caution

On March 10, 2025, the Senate Resources Committee held a first hearing on Senate Bill 108, which would authorize onshore aquaculture of non‑salmon finfish species in enclosed, escape‑proof facilities and allow state agencies to regulate permitting, species selection and health standards.

The Department of Fish and Game framed SB 108 as a narrowly tailored measure to permit land‑based production of finfish other than salmon under strict permitting and biosecurity controls. "SB 108 authorizes onshore farming of non salmon finned fish species in approved land based facilities in the state of Alaska," Commissioner Doug Vincent Lang said. The commissioner described modern technologies—recirculating aquaculture systems, sensors and ‘‘digital twin’’ monitoring—that supporters say reduce the risk of escapes and disease transmission compared with older offshore pens.

Key bill provisions and agency oversight: Committee materials and testimony said the bill would limit authorized facilities to inland, closed systems behind natural or artificial escape‑proof barriers; require that fish offered for sale be triploid (sterile); and make farms subject to existing fish‑health, fish‑transport and Department of Environmental Conservation permitting and inspection regimes. Joe Felkel, legislative liaison for ADF&G, cited the bill’s definition language excluding specified salmon species and told the committee the statute ‘‘does not include pink salmon, chum salmon, sockeye salmon, coho salmon, Chinook salmon, or Atlantic salmon’’ in the bill’s finfish definition.

Proponents argued economic and food‑security benefits. Commissioner Lang said onshore production could create year‑round jobs, help processors, and reduce reliance on imported farmed fish: "Alaska imports 95% of its food supply and farmed fish products are already in our grocery stores." Supporters said the state’s hatchery experience and enclosed systems provide a basis for controlled, sanitary production.

Tribes, commercial fishermen and conservation groups expressed strong opposition during public testimony. Jill White, government affairs liaison for the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, told the committee the tribe "opposes Senate Bill 108 because of the unnecessary risks fish farming poses to water and air quality and surrounding environments due to waste, use of feed, and chemicals like antibiotics and pesticides." Multiple commercial fishermen and processors warned that even limited onshore production could undercut the Alaska wild‑salmon brand and harm small fishing businesses that rely on export markets and limited processing capacity.

Health and escape risks were a central concern in questioning. Senators asked how permitting would handle ponds in flood zones and whether triploid fish are reliably sterile. The committee heard that triploid production and testing are established practices for hatcheries used in stocking programs, and witnesses said regulators would require testing and DEC clearance before farmed fish products could be sold. "Once you get there, then you test the eggs… take a hundred eggs, find out, make sure that your percentages are up to %," Commissioner Lang said, describing current triploid testing methods used for hatchery releases.

Committee action and public participation: Chair Giesel opened public testimony and limited oral remarks to two minutes; dozens of callers and in‑room witnesses weighed in, including representatives of Wild Salmon Nation, Save Our Salmon, Seafood Producers Cooperative (Sitka), commercial fishers from Bristol Bay, fishing guides, and tribal representatives. Testimony from across the state was predominantly opposed to the bill in its present form. The committee set SB 108 aside for further consideration and indicated it would keep the public record open for written comments.

Next steps and outstanding questions: Committee members asked for more detail on "positive control" and containment standards for ponds and tanks, the department’s timeline and criteria for approving particular species, and whether DEC or ADF&G would require double containment or other engineered safeguards for facilities in flood‑prone areas. Sponsors and administration witnesses indicated they would welcome sideboards and specific permitting requirements from the committee.

No formal vote was taken on SB 108; the committee concluded the hearing and kept public testimony open for additional written comments.