WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 71

An act relating to consumer data privacy and online surveillance

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Alison Clarkson and 5 co-sponsors

Requires 50% of food security infrastructure grants to fund physical projects for commercial seafood and agriculture, boosting processing, storage, energy efficiency and logistics.

Senate Message: Signed by Governor June 16, 2026
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 71

Summary — S.71 (2025): An Act relative to the use of food security infrastructure grants

Note on discrepancies: the bill metadata provided contains conflicting titles and sponsor lists. This summary is based on the actual bill text supplied, which amends the use of funds for "food security infrastructure grants" (Massachusetts line item 1599-6078, ch. 268 of the Acts of 2022).

Purpose / Intent

To direct how monies appropriated for "food security infrastructure grants" must be spent by requiring that half of the total funds be allocated to physical infrastructure projects that directly benefit the commercial seafood and agricultural industries. The intent is to prioritize capital investments that strengthen processing, storage, and energy-efficiency capacity across fisheries and farming operations.

Key provisions

  • Amends line item 1599-6078 of section 2A of chapter 268 of the Acts of 2022.
  • Adds a requirement that 50% of the total amount appropriated for food security infrastructure grants be spent on physical infrastructure projects benefiting commercial seafood and agricultural industries.
  • Specifies eligible physical infrastructure projects, including (but not limited to):
    • On-vessel and land-based automatic processing machines
    • Refrigerated vehicles and refrigerated storage facilities
    • On-vessel and land-based upgrades to improve energy efficiency, reduce carbon footprint, and increase operational efficiency
    • Wash-and-pack stations
    • Agricultural storage facilities
    • High tunnels and greenhouses
    • Energy-efficiency upgrades for irrigation systems, tractors, and similar equipment

Who is affected

  • Primary beneficiaries: commercial seafood sector (including fishing vessels and processors) and agricultural producers (farmers, growers, and farm processors).
  • Secondary beneficiaries: cold-chain logistics providers, food processors, and local economies dependent on seafood and agriculture.
  • Administrators: state agencies or grant-making bodies responsible for distributing the line-item funds (likely the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Department of Agricultural Resources, or similar agencies depending on administration).
  • Non-capital grant applicants: entities seeking non-physical investments (e.g., planning, technical assistance, workforce development) may face reduced access to funds if half are reserved for physical projects.

Procedural / timeline information

  • Introduced (Senate): January 13, 2025 (filed Jan 9, 2025 per docket)
  • Referred to committee(s): records show referrals to Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Agriculture; Agriculture and Fisheries; and Judiciary at various times (metadata contains duplication).
  • Hearing scheduled: September 16, 2025, 10:00 AM–1:00 PM (location B-1)
  • Current status in provided materials: REFERRED TO JUDICIARY / referred to relevant committees; not enacted.

Fiscal and implementation notes

  • The bill does not specify a dollar amount; the 50% mandate applies to whatever total was appropriated to line item 1599-6078.
  • Implementation will require the administering agency to revise grant rules, application scoring, or award priorities to ensure compliance with the 50% physical-infrastructure allocation.
  • Potential tradeoffs include reduced flexibility to fund non-capital activities (education, planning, technical assistance) that also support food security.

Additional

  • The bill amends a specific FY2022 appropriation line, so its practical effect depends on whether funds remain available or similar future appropriations are structured the same way.
  • Because the provided metadata contained inconsistent sponsor and title information, reviewers should consult the official legislative docket for authoritative status and sponsor details.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.