Abstract

    Texas mariculture, a major industry, is currently threatening local environmental and socio-economic systems. This study considers the existing industry, its environmental and socio-economic impacts, and the legislative history leading to the present lack of regulative measures. Through a series of literature reviews, this study is a report of compiled information regarding threats to social, economic, and natural capital by mariculture facilities. Further literature review led to information regarding legislative history and regulative attempts. The magnitude of threats to local systems, human and environmental, and existing problems caused by this rapidly expanding industry necessitates regulative measures. Recognition of the severity and motivation towards progress in the Texas Legislature is lacking despite foreign example of system collapse.

Introduction to Texas Mariculture

The Texas shrimp mariculture industry began in 1980 and in the past 17 years has grown to have an immense impact on the Texas’ economy. In 1994 the 4.5 million pound harvest brought an estimated $25 million (Senate Natural Resources Subcommittee, 1996). Further, the demand for shrimp continues to grow at a rate of 7-9% annually (Murky Waters, Case Study 1, 1997). The three largest shrimp farms in Texas contributed 70% of U.S. shrimp farm production (EDF Murky Waters, Case Study 1, 1997). These three farms, Southern Star-Hung International, the Arroyo Aquaculture Association, and the Harlingen Shrimp Farm, are the largest shrimp farms in the nation. However, these seemingly beneficial economic figures are overshadowed by the environmental and socio-economic detriment resulting from shrimp farm operations.

Shrimp farms function as a form of aquaculture termed mariculture. Farms are located near estuaries, as shrimp, and hence the farms, are dependent upon brackish water. High intensity farms, such as those in Texas, utilize industrialized processes whereby farmers manually stock large ponds with wild caught or "post-larvae", abandoning more sustainable traditional methods which allow natural water flows to stock ponds. (Greenpeace Report, 1997). These industrial stocking methods lead to stocking rates 100 times the density of traditional farms. With this density comes many problems for both shrimp farmers and the surrounding ecosystems. First, the shrimp, raised and living in unnaturally crowded ponds are highly susceptible to disease. Farmers pump high levels of chlorine and antibiotics into the ponds to combat this problem (Greenpeace Report, 1997). Unfortunately, much of these toxins settle to the bottom of ponds only to be flushed out into the estuary. The shrimp are fed artificial pellets made of fishmeal, soybean, and protein substitutes that also fall to the bottom. In addition, supplements comprised of urea and triple superphosphate are fed into the ponds to foster algae growth for additional shrimp food (Greenpeace, 1997).

For shrimp to survive they must be maintained in water with high levels of dissolved oxygen. As a result of high density, food and toxin settling, and the potential for disease, high intensity farms must flush 30% their total water volume each day (EDF Murky Waters, Case Study 1, 1997). Evidently, the tremendous wastewater discharge generated from this practice is a major source of point source pollution.

The damage caused by wastewater discharges is multifaceted, ranging from the spread of disease to naturally occurring shrimp fisheries and escapement of exotic species through discharge canals (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 1998), both of which threaten wild shrimp fisheries. In addition, these discharges make the water unsuitable for recreational fishing and tourism, an industry that brings $546 million dollars to the Texas economy (EDF Murky Waters, Case Study 1, 1997) each year. Further, an odor is emitted that has been a factor in the decline of coastal land value near farms.

To better realize the magnitude of loss risked by current mariculture practices, it is helpful to consider the varying types of capital involved through a conceptual framework as set forth by Goodland and Daly, (1996). The basis of this hypothesis lies in the achievement of social, economic, and environmental sustainability which correspond to social (or human capital for our study), economic, and natural capital. The achievement of these disciplines of sustainability requires recognition of the input and output rule Goodland and Daly, 1996). The output rule states:

The industry was initially supported by the Texas Department of Commerce, which led to the passing of a law in 1987, by the Texas Legislature, exempting mariculture farms from water rights permits (Senate Natural Resources Subcommittee, 1996). In 1989 the Fish Farming Act was created to support the new industry and with it brought the creation of a "regulatory infrastructure" (Senate Natural Resources Subcommittee, 1996). Hence, the objectives of this study will be 1) to assess the current shrimp farming practices in light of their effect on the social, natural, and economic capital of Texas coastal zones and 2) to explore regulatory shortcomings and opportunities as a means to formulate recommendations towards sustainable shrimp farming.

Social Aspects

The naturally occurring shrimp, in addition to fisheries, which support commercial and recreational fishers, in the Gulf of Mexico, provide human capital, through supporting the livelihoods that allow communities to maintain investments in education and health. Texas contributes 70% of domestic shrimp production. 75 million pounds of this figure can be attributed to shrimp from wild fisheries (EDF Murky Waters, Case Study 1, 1997). Obviously the number of jobs provided by an industry of this magnitude are many and thus, the livelihood of many rely upon this source.

It must also be noted that shrimp farms also provide jobs. In 1994, 868 jobs were created and at the start of 1997 nine shrimp-farms were operating on the Texas coast with two additional farms proposed (EDF Murky Waters, Case Study 1, 1997). However, a number of these jobs created went to Taiwanese citizens who return to Taiwan after the harvest, as is the case with two of the largest farms The Arroyo Aquaculture Association and Southern Star Shrimp farms.

Recreational shrimp fishing has become increasingly popular since the late 1970s and recreational fishing is credited with spending $546 million each year. Obviously further detriment challenges the viability of this major industry. Dirty water makes some types of sport fishing impossible, and hence threatens this major aspect of the tourism industry.

Local citizens, environmental organizations, local shrimpers, and communities have addressed these concerns through legislative actions.

Technical Aspects

Effects to the natural capital, the natural occurring shrimp, affected by shrimp farms in Texas, are far reaching. The three current issues of concern are as follows:

1) Threats to natural ecosystems from introductions of non-native species, as well as disease, resulting from escapement, 2) effects on natural water ecosystems from discharges, and 3) the location of shrimp farms (Texas Senate Natural Resources Interim Subcommittee, 1996).

Disease Threats

First, the brown, pink, and white shrimp, from the penaeidae family, naturally occur in the Gulf of Mexico and play an irreplaceable role in the estuarine food web. Penaeid shrimp provide biomass to fish and other predators by feeding on detritus, plankton, and other organic material. At the same time, the juvenile shrimp are consumed by juvenile fish species. Their link is vital to the energy flow of the food web. The brown shrimp, 57% of the total Gulf landings and considered fully exploited, serves as food to finfish species and large crustaceans. Environmental conditions, habit alteration, food availability, and substrate type affect the brown shrimp. Pink shrimp, 8% of total Gulf landings and considered stable prior to 1986 (interestingly, about the same time as shrimp farms took off), occur on a shallow shelf where bays and estuaries border, utilizing the constant tidal flush of marine water. Pink shrimp are found in the diets of many fish but most predominantly in the diets of sport fish such as, snook, spotted seatrout, and gray snapper. In addition, marine mammals, wading and sea birds feed on pink shrimp. White shrimp make up 31% of total Gulf landings and are considered fully exploited, bordering on overfished status. The white shrimp, like the brown and pink shrimps, plays an integral role in the energy flow of food webs. The white shrimp provides food for species such as, the tiger shark, hardhead catfish, red snapper, Spanish mackerel, and the southern and gulf flounders. The maintenance of these natural shrimp fisheries are not only important for the livelihoods of fisherman, but the viability of shrimp farms rely upon these fisheries for new pond stock. (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997)

Further, Texas bays and estuaries are generally shallow "with little tidal movement", both of which limit "circulation, diffusion, and transport" (Texas Senate Natural Resources Interim Subcommittee, 1996). Hence, foreign bacterial and viral strains are easily introduced and very threatening. Two means of transmission have been determined (although many others have been methods have been discussed). First, "direct" transmission from shrimp to shrimp through fecal matter, tissue or cannibalism and secondly, "indirectly" through the fecal material of animals which eat infected shrimp (Texas Senate Natural Resources Interim Subcommittee, 1996). In 1991, escaped Penaeus vannamai were found near Arroyo City and Laguna Madre and by 1995 there were enough to "purchase locally grown brood stock…grown from seed certified as healthy by the U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program" (Texas Senate Natural Resources Interim Subcommittee, 1996). Unfortunately, this 1995 crop became infected with Taura Syndrome virus and farmers were forced to quarantine their crops. This quarantine stopped the spread of the virus through "direct" means to native fish but introduction through "indirect" means was unavoidable. Farmers attempted to grow a replacement seed from native Penaeus setiferous but viruses were detected in the ponds and proved "lethal to the native brown, pink, and white shrimp of the Gulf of Mexico" (Texas Senate Natural Resources Interim Subcommittee, 1996).

Pollution Threats

Shrimp ponds, which are filled in the spring, require one complete flush of water per growing season, the amount of water depending upon the size of the farm. These water requirements are estimated by multiplying the number of surface acres by the depth of the ponds by the number of times the ponds are refilled (Texas Senate Natural Resources Interim Subcommittee, 1996). If a 4,000 acre farm with four foot ponds is flushed, it requires 16,000 acre feet of water and replaces those 16,000 acre feet with waste water.

Wastewater contains two types of pollutants, bio-chemical oxygen demanding materials (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS), harmful to shrimp fisheries and other aquatic life (Texas Senate Natural Resources Interim Subcommittee, 1996). Bio-chemical oxygen demanding materials (BOD) lower dissolved oxygen (DO). The maintenance of optimal levels of DO is important to natural shrimp fisheries as shrimp are sensitive to low levels of DO (Greenpeace Report, 1996). Receiving waters are categorized from those that maintain a high level of species diversity and are categorized as "exceptional" to those waters with low species diversity that are categorized as "limited". Areas with high levels of species diversity require 5 milligrams of DO per liter (Texas Senate Natural Resources Interim Subcommittee, 1996). The Arroyo Colorado is considered an area maintaining a high level of species diversity. Unfortunately, its present levels of DO are at 4 milligrams of DO per liter (Texas Senate Natural Resources Interim Subcommittee, 1996).

Emissions of TSS are as harmful, causing the deposition of silt to receiving waters and diminishing the abilities of aquatic plants to maintain photosynthetic processes (Texas Senate Natural Resources Interim Subcommittee, 1996). Further, the siltation causes the waters to change color.

Problems with Siting

Issues regarding the location of mariculture sites are most concerned with the lack of criteria used to determine appropriate locations. General problems with hydrology, such as diffusion, mixing and flushing lead to threats to nearby wildlife refuges such as Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, " the winter home of the Endangered Whooping Crane and numerous other species of migratory water fowl, and a stopping point on the Migratory Flyaway", which draws about 78,000 visitors (Texas Senate Natural Resources Interim Subcommittee, 1996). Also, odors resulting from waste water have been blamed for lowered home values.

Regulatory Aspects

In realizing the threats to aquatic ecosystems, local economies, and livelihoods, regulatory legislation seems inevitable. The cyclical threats to natural fisheries brought by shrimp farms would seem to be adequate motivation for strict regulatory legislation. However, the ever-changing infrastructure has failed to accomplish a workable plan for regulative administration. From the inception of the mariculture industry in 1986 to the present day, an adequate regulatory system has failed to be created.

Beginning in 1975 when the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department was given jurisdiction, the original prohibitions were aimed at protecting non-native shrimp species from introductions of exotic species. However, this objective was overridden as the Texas Department of Commerce became involved in 1986 with the main objective of promoting the fledgling mariculture industry. As a result, the Texas Legislature passed a law exempting shrimp farms from water rights permits in August 1987. The Fish Farming Act was passed in 1989 to form a regulatory infrastructure at the state level, which would serve to promote the interests of the industry. This act formed the Aquaculture Executive Committee (AEC) which was comprised of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Chairman, the Texas Department of Agriculture Commissioner, and the General Land Office Commissioner. This Committee was created to formulate a single regulative policy in the interest of the industry. An aquaculture liaison office was also created to implement the decided upon policy. However, the liaison office and AEC proved to be ineffectual as a result of a lack of funding. As a result, the licensing of shrimp farms was left as a registration process. (Texas Senate Natural Resources Interim Subcommittee, 1996)

In 1991 the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 977, amending the Fish Farm Act of 1989. The office of the aquaculture liaison was omitted and the duties were passed to the AEC along with three additional duties:

1- The AEC was to assist applicants with their applications for permits,

2- to coordinate the issuance of permits, and

3- to compile a strategic plan every two years. (Texas Senate Natural Resources Interim Subcommittee, 1996)

At this time aquaculture was categorized as agriculture. The Department of Agriculture was given the capability to suspend licenses. However, these suspensions were implemented only as a result of violations of other state agency requirements (for the most part, Texas Parks and Wildlife requirements dealing with exotics) and exacting compliance was unmanageable. Despite these amendments jurisdictional opposition was still an issue. (Texas Senate Natural Resources Interim Subcommittee, 1996)

Statutory changes were recommended by the AEC in a report to the 74^th Legislature that gave rise to Senate Bill 1317. The five recommendations were as follows:

1- The Texas Department of Agriculture’s licensing program would be converted to a registration program,

2- The TDA’s punitive jurisdiction over record keeping would be removed,

3- The TDA would gain jurisdiction over non-licensed shrimp farms,

4- Membership ( Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, Texas Department of Health, Texas Department of Commerce, Texas Agriculture Extension Service, and three public members)and dues would increase.

5- The AEC would provide technical assistance through universities and government financial assistance to the industry, and would study means of developing the industry as a means of stimulating the local economy.

(Texas Senate Natural Resources Interim Subcommittee, 1996)

Senate Bill 1317 included the AEC’s recommendations and added an amendment to the AEC’s purpose. The amendment called for the committee to work "collaboratively". In addition the bill called for regulations of total suspended solids (TSS) to be carried out by the TNRCC (Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission). First, the TNRCC was enabled to enact standards for the "preparation and submission" of reports from farms without individual waste permits and to take weekly samples to test "(1) TSS levels in discharge and receiving water, (2) 5 day biochemical oxygen demand in receiving streams, (3) the ammonia nitrogen content of the waste discharged and the receiving stream, and (4) the dissolved oxygen content of the waste discharged and the receiving stream (Texas Senate Natural Resources Interim Subcommittee, 1996)." In addition, three provisions were included for the purpose of allowing the industry a four year opportunity to study levels of discharge. The TNRCC was not allowed to implement the standards until June 1, 1999 unless:

"(1) economically feasible treatment technology is available and if used would result in the facility meeting the total suspended solids effluent limit in question;

(2) the facility failed to implement solids reduction measures or practices specified in a rule, permit, or order of the commission [TNRCC]; or

(3) compliance with the effluent limitation is necessary to prevent severe, irreversible, impairment of the existing uses of the receiving stream (Texas Senate Natural Resources Interim Subcommittee, 1996)."

Senate Bill 1317 was passed by the Senate, however, it was left pending in the House of Representatives.

Similarly unproductive were two House bills proposed to the 75^th Legislature in 1997, which also failed to pass. This time the failure was due to the premature adjournment of the Legislature. House Bill 2640 and House Bill 2665 recognized and addressed each of the three most significant issues regarding mariculture facilities. House Bill 2640 set forth necessary requirements for studies to be conducted and prohibited the issuance of applications for permits until subsequent the studies were completed. The studies were to include:

"(1) the need for discharges and ways to minimize discharges from mariculture facilities for the commercial production of shrimp or any exotic species, and

(2) the potential impacts of such discharges on the aquatic life of Texas bays and estuaries receiving such discharges. (HB2640, 1997)"

The bill further specified that "the study shall include the examination of the potential impacts of any release or pollutants, including viruses and exotic species (HB2640, 1997)."

Further, permits issued prior to the effective date of the bill, should it have been enacted, were to expire September 1, 1999, and would be renewed only if the facility met the standards determined by the study. Each shrimp farm would be responsible for an environmental report describing:

(1) "the site selection process, including alternative locations considered" and basis for the site chosen;

(2) design and operating plans;

(3) "existing environmental conditions at the location;"

(4) "any potential impacts of water intake, waste discharge, dredging, and any other activity related to the construction or operation of the facility;" (HB2640, 1997)

The provisions of a permit would include a quarantine of any pond where any virus or disease is found until approval by the executive director of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and would require a "disease monitoring program; immediate reporting of any indication of disease or detection of disease to the executive director of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; for any pond in which disease is suspected or confirmed, provisions for the use of netting or other similar steps to minimize the removal of diseased organisms by birds and other animals; and the immediate quarantine of any area in which disease is suspected or confirmed (HB2640, 1997)." Further, licenses for exotic shrimp species would be prohibited.

These provisions, by providing for the foremost threats to coastal ecosystems by shrimp farms without conclusive scientific knowledge of their full effects, utilize the "precautionary principle" as first applied in the Montreal Protocol. This principle "stipulates that lack of complete scientific certainty is insufficient to delay (an international) policy" (French, 1997). Unfortunately, the Legislature’s lack of action has stalled the application of this principle by failing to recognize the importance of preventative action.

"We live in an imperfect world with imperfect access to information and imperfect scientific knowledge which makes decision-making imperfect. If humanity has to err, where the future of human health

, welfare, and the environment are concerned, it makes sense to err on the side of over protection instead of acting to little too late."

- Ved Nanda,, 1989 (Weiner et al,, 1994)

Problems

As mentioned, the major issues concerning shrimp farms are 1) threats to the natural ecosystem resulting from introductions of non-native species, 2) effects on natural water ecosystems from discharges, 3) the location of shrimp farms (Texas Senate Natural Resources Subcommittee, 1996) and hence, the need for more stringent and organized regulation. At present, authority over shrimp aquaculture is held by three agencies, each overseeing a different aspect of the industry. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is responsible for the regulation of non-native species introductions, the Texas Department of Agriculture has general authority and controls vehicle licensing, and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission is responsible for discharges to public waters.

Unfortunately, the reach of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) does not extend past the introduction of diseases when exotic shrimp are first introduced to farms and leaves production phases without regulative control. Current regulations require only specific pathogen free (SPF) shrimp for introduction to farms and call for certain "shellfish disease specialists" to determine exotics as disease free and require documentation the exotics are from disease-free farms (Texas Senate Natural Resources Subcommittee, 1996). However, the problem of disease outbreaks during production continues to go unregulated as bills such as SB 1317, HB 2640, and HB 2665 have failed to be passed.

At present, shrimp farms are moving to greater degrees of intensification and farther from the sustainable traditional aquaculture systems. Farmers are relying on the manual stocking of ponds with unnatural density rates that require ponds to be fertilized to stimulate alga growth for food and make shrimp vulnerable to disease. (Greenpeace, 1997) However, most problematic is the need to sustain high water quality within the ponds. Shrimp are sensitive to low concentrations of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the pond water (Green peace, 1997). This necessitates the continuous flushing of used water and pumping of fresh ground and sea water into the ponds in order to maintain optimal levels of DO (Greenpeace, 1997). The vast amount of water used to flush these ponds places a strain on local ground and fresh water sources.

These intensive practices make ponds susceptible to disease. Thailand has provided proof by example. One of the world’s largest shrimp providers, Thailand peaked at 90,000 metric tons in 1987 and quickly plummeted to 25,000 metric tons in 1989 (Greenpeace, 1997).

In addition to the high density of shrimp in each pond, the resulting need for artificial food supplements leads to the sedimentation of uneaten pellets to the bottom of ponds and necessitates further flushing (Greenpeace, 1997). Intensive pond systems, like those described, "may need water exchange rates of between ten and fifty-five percent" each day depending on the specific practices of the farm (Greenpeace, 1997). Logically, this flushing leads to the issue of pollution to natural waters from discharged, or flushed, waste water.

The polluted wastewater contaminates local coastal water and threatens the natural occurring shrimp fisheries. Discharges often contain total suspended solids, nutrients from chemicals, and chemical additives. The Taura Syndrome Virus (TSV) occurred in disease outbreaks in 1995 and 1996. In 1995 the disease caused a 95% loss of crops and less severe losses in 1996, as a result aquaculturists had to restock the native white shrimp (Joint Subcommittee, 1997). Infectious Hypodermal and Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHHNV), White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV), and the Yellow Head Virus (YHV) have also been reported in Texas.

TSV and IHHNV are endemic to Central and South America and WSSV and YHV to Asia. Obviously these diseases were introduced through less than natural means, most likely through aquaculture, as exotics from these areas are preferred for their large size over smaller native species and are often used for stock and feed. The introduction of diseases to endemic fisheries not only endangers their viability but also risks the livelihoods of the many people who depend on the shrimp fishing and processing industry. The processing industry alone has more than 11,000 employees in 182 companies (Joint Subcommittee, 1997). A major problem in working towards a cooperative remedy lies in the lack of Federal or State animal certification protocols (Joint Subcommittee, 1997). These diseases do not threaten humans and thus, the jurisdiction of the Texas Department of Health is not mobilized. Again, leaving the major issue in a jurisdictional purgatory of state agencies.

Wastewater discharges lead to problems beyond those related to shrimp disease. Impending damage to the natural ecosystems of nearby bays and estuaries ahs been recognized for many years but regulations have been stymied by the inability to determine the carrying capacity and natural water quality along the Texas coast. The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) carries jurisdiction over matters relating to waste water discharge from aquaculture and mariculture facilities. The TNRCC requires facilities to obtain permits to discharge water but the requirements are still blurred due to inadequate data. Dr. Bobby Eldeman stated,

Because of the tremendous amounts of discharged wastewater from mariculture facilities, their location is a major issue. This waste has a distinctive smell causing nearby areas to lose land value. The industry, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission admitted a lack of any criteria regarding the site selection of these facilities (Texas Senate Natural Resources Subcommittee, 1996). The Gulf Coast Conservation Association listed this as amajor concern.

The TNRCC clarified that site location is considered during the application process, however, the committee refuses to function as a zoning board. They make strict discharge requirements for facilities in sensitive areas by creating economic disincentives but will not let manifest further zoning criteria.

Overall, the general lack of legal requirements pin pointing the most consequential issues stands as the most serious barrier to sustainable mariculture.

Opportunities

The lack of regulations directed towards the most imminent issues can be remedied. Steps do so have been made, despite unnecessary blockades. The 76^th Texas Legislature will again have opportunities to vote in the direction of sustainable shrimp farming. These bills should include sections similar to those in SB 1317, HB 2640, and HB 2665, addressing issues of exotic disease introduction, wastewater discharge as it affects natural ecosystems, and facility location criteria. Fortunately, our country, and hence, the state of Texas, has the legislative means to regulate this industry and avoid the farming and fishery collapse experienced by foreign industries. Further, we’ve been allowed the benefit of foreign example to provide us with what not to do.

Examples from foreign industry can also offer knowledge toward traditional methods that have been maintained for hundreds of years, prior to the industrialized and intensified methods of today. These practices utilize natural means of wastewater treatment through wetlands. Wastewater disperses through a series of reeds and grass, reducing suspended solids (Texas Senate Natural Resources Interim Subcommittee, 1996).

A fledgling approach has been attempted by the Aquatech Seafood farm, (formerly Penbur Farms). The Aquatech Farms are located inland and flush indoor shrimp ponds with recirculating water (Aquatech Seafood Web Page, 1998). They are still perfecting their system but this new technology has brought forth a promising alternative to flushing vast amounts of water into natural ecosystems.

The University of Texas Marine Science Institute also researched a recirculating shrimp farm system. This system utilizes "biofilters". "Biofilters" are waste decomposing micro organisms that are killed with ozone before the water is pumped back to shrimp tanks. ( Murky Waters, 1997)

Recommendations

1. Texas must regulate this industry or risk its eventual collapse. Work done to prepare failed bills has been extensive and thorough, resulting in promising provisions. However, the impending catastrophes, to both social and physical environments, have not been recognized by the Legislature. Bills, such as S.B. 1317, H.B. 2640, H.B. 2665, must be enacted. Not only does present knowledge necessitate its inclusion in legislation, but the rate at which new discoveries are made must be matched by updated legislation and higher standards.

2. Studies and research towards alternative means of waste water discharge, exotic species and disease transmission must continue and must be considered.

3. Criteria considering disease and species introduction, waste water discharges, and the environmental impacts of both, must be included in the application and issuance of permits (Greenpeace, 1997)

References Cited

Aquatech Seafood Web Page, www.aquatechseafood.com/main.shtml

EDF Murky Waters, Case Study 1, 1997. www.edf.org/pubs/reports/aquaculture/f_dwnload.html

French, Hilary. 1997. "Learning from the Ozone Experience." In State of the World 1997, Brown, Lester R., et. al.

Greenpeace Report, Shrimp The Devastating Delicacy: The Explosion of Shrimp Farming and the Negative Impacts on People and the Environment, 1997. www.greenpeaceusa.org/reports/biodiversity/shrimp/shrmp02.html

Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture Shrimp Virus Work Group, National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Industry and Trade 1997.http://kingfish.ssp.nmfs.gov/oit/oit.html

Senate Natural Resources Subcommittee, Interim Report to the 75^th Legislature, Texas Aquaculture Industry, September 1996. Texas House. 1997. 75 th Legislature. HB 2640.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, NOAA Species Life History Summaries, Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico Estuaries Volume II: Species Life History Summaries, August 1997.

Weiner, William, et. al., International Environmental Law, Lupus Publications, Ltd., Detroit,1994.