Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

As you know, aquaponics has all sorts of potential to benefit society and our environment. At the same time, the practice of aquaponics has the potential to contribute to the risk of fish disease and proliferation of invasive species that may threaten commercial aquaculture and natural resources. In California, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is considering how to minimize those risks while promoting the beneficial aspects of aquaponics. One aspect of that effort involves developing appropriate regulations for the practice of aquaponics. A group of aquaponics practitioners, state agency personnel, and academic personnel, together comprising the Aquaponics Subcommittee (APS) of the Aquaculture Development Committee (ADC) that advises the CDFW’s Aquaculture Coordinator, has come up with an initial proposal for regulation of aquaponics in California. The ADC wants input on the proposal from the aquaponics community between now and their next meeting on January 8, 2015, at which time they plan to discuss the proposal and any input received. A number of members of the aquaponics community, including myself, have volunteered to solicit input from aquaponics folks.

The initial proposal is posted here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OvMb8gpp62IMFuLGHFzPObse4PBUqIcv6eLPxrhp6Fc/edit?usp=sharing. However, I think a discussion of terminology is necessary before you read it. The proposal makes a significant distinction between aquaponics operations that sell fish and those that do not. Unfortunately, the proposal uses the terms “commercial” and “non-commercial” to describe those two different categories, which is potentially confusing because an aquaponics operation that sells only vegetables and does not sell fish would be categorized as non-commercial in this context, even though in any other context, it would be considered commercial. So, I have taken the liberty of inserting the alternate terms “fish-selling” and “non-fish-selling” into the text of the proposal below.

Similarly, at one point the proposal describes an aquaponics operation that “produces” fish. “Produces” could be interpreted to mean a breeding operation to produce fry/fingerlings/juveniles, but according to the APS member who submitted the proposal, that is not the intended meaning. As such, I have taken the liberty of inserting the alternate term “utilizes,” which is more accurate.

PLEASE READ AND THINK ABOUT THE PROPOSAL AND SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS BY DECEMBER 31, 2014. You can submit your comments by posting a reply on this forum, or you can send comments directly to me at joezbro@gmail.com. I will forward all comments received by December 31 to the APS prior to their January 8 meeting. Feel free to contact me with any questions as well.

Paul

Paul Trudeau
Southside Aquaponic Farm
Sacramento, CA USA
916-533-5268 mobile

PS: If you are a member of a local AP group in California, please notify your group members of this issue and direct them to the discussion posted here. Thank you.

Cant open the link, Paul.

Worked for me.

Hi
You guys have got on pretty well on your own for nearly two hundred and fifty years.
I think it might be a bit arrogant of me to offer answers.
However if you could speak to the people at Apple and ask them to sort out the compatibility problems with Yosemite and CIV 4 ( my favorite game) I would be more than willing to ask a few questions.

Was there a local event which prompted this? The sort where politicians say, “Something must be done”
Is it a turf war between the various government agencies involved?
Do they just want more money?

What is an aquaponic system?
What is an aquarium?
Are you getting input from Aquarium people?
What is a garden pond? Have you spoken to pond owners?
Could a child sell a fish from his bedroom tank or a plant to his friends at school?

Do you have long grass?

Here we encourage politicians to kick things we don’t like into it.
Titus

There is a constant pressing need for beuracrats to increase regulation.

Don't existing regulations that cover the breeding, growing and sale of fish already exist?

Why is a separate body of legislation/regulation for the production and sale of fish via an aquaponics system required?

Are there not already laws and regulations governing the keeping of fish for private use in tanks or ponds?

Why is a separte body of legislation required to regulate the keeping of fish in a pond or tank versus in a pond or tank connected to filtration system where plants are grown?

Surely any issues can be handled under existing regulations?

Titus and Stuart - maybe you could read the proposal and respond constructively?

I did read the proposal and I thought I was responding constructively.

I think the best thing to do with extra pieces and layer of legislation like this is to reject/resist them. To ask the question why is this regulation needed? Or to ask if these issues are already dealt with by existing legislation?

I asked the questions I asked because there did not seem to be anything in the proposal that shouldn't already be covered by existing legislation.

If the areas in question are not covered by existing legislation then in the interests of protecting the environment a more comprehensive regulation that includes fish keeping more generally rather than specifically for AP is needed.

Like Titus said was has prompted this push? Has something happened to which there is a percieved need to repsond and do something?

So many laws that we see being introduced lately just seem to add complexity to the legal system or regulatory frame work or increase the spoke and power of the state and their instruments of enforcement.

Currently in California, an Aquaculture permit is $815 dollars. I don't know a single aquaponics installation that has an aquaculture permit, despite the fact that by law they need one. It looks like this new law will provide for reduced permit fees, and allow legal consumption of fish you own.

Obviously you guys will know your legislation better than us but I would have thought the definition of AQ would have included AP already so no need for a new law. As you have implied this is the case but commercial AP operations are breaking the law. Yes?

Is it illegal to grow fish for your own consumption under current regulations?

In Australia there are no laws governing the growing of fish for personal consumption so it is legal because it is not illegal. Same with poultry, rabbits and a bunch of other animals. However it is illegal to slaughter pigs, sheep, goats and cows that you have grown yourself unless you live on a "farm".

The proposal as it has been presented seems unnecessary and is very poorly worded. Paul has attempted to translate the language of commercial vs non-comercial but the word "produces" is a very poor choice. "Utilizes" is certainly not an improvement, if anything its worse, since all AP systems no matter what their size "utilize" the fish in some manner or other even if it is only to provide food to the plants. Legislation has to be written in such a way so that it is NOT open to interpretation. Unless words are specifically defined in the legislation in question then their commonly excepted definition is taken as their meaning.

If there is a need due to the current state of affairs in California for this legislation then answering our questions would have revealed this to us.

I don't believe you need an Aquaculturist permit unless you are selling fish to someone for stocking their pond. A private pond owner who doesn't sell fish doesn't appear to need one.

But Scotty you are in Oregon. How different are the rules between states?

Stuart - yes someone could register their aquaponics operation as aquaculture. And they should if they're trying to stay legal. The issue is more of one about backyard systems. Any backyard ap system operator in California _should_ have an aquaculture permit. A lot of people say "Oh, I fall under the hobby exemption" but the hobby exemption only applies to tropical fish, and it specifically does not apply to fish raised for consumption.

Have I registered my backyard system and paid the money? Heck No. I certainly would if I was going to start a commercial operation....

So the background information is that there is a current law that prohibits BYAP without registration.

That was one of my initial questions. So if the exemption only applies to tropical fish does that mean keeping fish in a pond also needs a permit?

I was actually looking at the California information on private ponds Stuart. Unfortunately many states follow California's example in writing their laws so it's better to head off any issues before California can incorporate them into their setup.

Assuming California already has laws making it illegal to transport fish without a permit and making it illegal to keep or release invasive species, I don't see how these laws will do anything to prevent invasive species escaping into State waters.

Many people interested in Aquaponics are also interested in sustainability and breeding their own fish. No allowance is made for small growers to grow species that are considered invasive. Unfortunately the fish that reproduce most easily and are the most tolerant of AP conditions are often the ones that are considered invasive or could compete with native fish if released. Tilapia definitely fall in this category (depending on where you live). Yellow Perch might also fall in this category where I am. I strongly feel that if you have a covered system with no outlet to any waterways, you should be allowed to keep non-native fish that might be considered invasive - provided no live fish can leave the system.

I also think they should allow limited fish transfers/sales of non invasive fish by small scale aquaponics people to help others with restocking when things go South at the wrong time of the year. Many of the larger aquaculture businesses don't want to hassle with 20 or 30 fish or don't have any available at certain times of the year. A transport permit would still be needed.

Just a few of my thoughts, I welcome any feedback and I know some of you will see some of this as unrealistic, that's OK, discussions are always welcome.

Cheers

HI
It is very difficult to transpose laws, rules and regulations from one country to another. Our customs, culture and institutions are so different.
However your point about where California leads, others follow is well made.
It is there that you must get it right.
This is a link to UK rules and regulation. (PDF download files I cannot attach)

http://www.aquaponics-uk-forum.org.uk/i ... oads;cat=5

Couple of points. Make it easy and free to register and compliance will be high.
Vary the control of movement of fish depending on the local perceived danger.
Politicians have sticky fingers. Follow the money
Titus