Commission narrowly approves permitting pathway for commercial dotted duckweed with strict containment and geographic exclusion

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission voted March 26 to create a permitting pathway for commercial aquaculture of dotted duckweed, approving a staff‑recommended regulatory framework that includes facility‑level containment standards, an exclusion zone east of U.S. Highway 83 and a shift to annual inspections.

Michael Tennant, regulations and policy manager, told commissioners the department’s risk‑benefit analysis found dotted duckweed could establish broadly and pose risks to small ponds and community fisheries if it escaped cultivation, but that a package of special containment provisions — full enclosure of culture ponds, closed greenhouse harvesting and processing, mandatory destruction of plant material before draining, routing wastewater and byproducts through devices that render propagules nonviable, and a geographic exclusion zone — would substantially reduce that risk. The proposal authorizes a statewide commercial aquaculture facility permit program under Title 31, including new section 57.129, and makes clear permits would be subject to scheduled and unannounced inspections and a 24‑hour escape reporting requirement.

The item drew a lengthy public record. Plantable Foods, the petitioner, said its West Texas operation invested over $30 million, created more than 35 local jobs and planned up to $200 million and 150 new jobs conditional on approval. Tony Martens, co‑founder of Plantable, said the company and independent scientists reviewed the species’ growth characteristics and concluded dotted duckweed does not present a higher invasiveness risk than native duckweeds. Dr. Chris Phillips, Plantable’s vice president of research, urged approval and described laboratory and literature evidence that the strain is unlikely to survive in west Texas outside enclosed systems.

Commissioners expressed deep division. Commissioner John McCall urged denial, warning that dormant stages and seeds could allow the species to rebound after drought or freezing and spread via waterfowl, calling the petitioned data “disingenuous” and saying the economic gains should not come at the expense of Texas waterways. Several commissioners echoed those concerns; others, including Commissioner Doggett, emphasized the potential economic benefits for rural communities and said rigorous, site‑specific facility standards could reduce risk to an acceptable level.

Staff noted that after discussions and review of the proposed safeguards, Texas A&M and the Texas Wildlife Association withdrew formal opposition and moved to neutrality. Public comments received during notice were mixed (42 comments, 23 in favor, 19 opposed). After discussion, Vice‑Chairman Bell moved to approve the framework as presented, including the expanded exclusion zone west of U.S. 83 and moving inspection frequency to annual; the motion passed in a roll call vote 5–3 (the transcript records a split roll call and Chairman Foster cast a decisive vote).

Commissioners instructed staff to use Plantable’s facility as a model and emphasized the need for robust, frequent and, where necessary, spontaneous inspections while the program is new. The department will publish permit standards and conditions in the regulation (Title 31, new section 57.129) and make inspection protocols and emergency response requirements conditions of each permit.