Fines For Weeds Not A Choice Legislature Should Select
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Several years ago the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension surveyed Nevada farmers and ranchers to find out the top things on their priority list. Only one topic got more interest than weed control – protecting water for agricultural production.
In spite of the importance that Nevada agricultural producers place on weed control, a legislative proposal surfaced by the Nevada Department of Agriculture and submitted into the legislative process for the 2009 session by the Nevada Public Lands Committee – SB 110 is an idea which should be dismissed as not appropriate.
SB 110 proposes to authorize the state quarantine officer (the Director for the Dept of Ag.) to adopt regulations to set up a system for administrative fines for non-control of noxious weeds. The legislative proposal envisions the possibility for these fines to go up to $1,000.
The weed fine program would fit into the current authority of the Department of Agriculture to take charge in controlling noxious weeds on someone’s property and then sending the property owner a bill for the control activity. In case the property owner doesn’t pay back the charges for control, the Dept. has the authority to place a lien on the property to force collection.
Farmers & Ranchers Say “No” To Weed Fine Idea:
Farm Bureau farmers and ranchers rejected the idea that establishing a fine program for non-compliance with weed control responsibilities.
Noxious Weed Control: 241
We support the change to NRS 555.203, supporting the change of the word “shall” to “may”. Weed districts established as a non-taxing entity should not be able to change that status without a vote of the property owners within the district.
Nevada Farm Bureau will work with the Nevada Board of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture to develop, fund and implement a plan of using state weed abatement laws (NRS 555) to require weeds to be controlled. We do not support the proposed action to create an intermediate fine process.
There must be cooperation and consultation between all appropriate local, state and federal agencies regarding noxious weed control measures on all lands, regardless of ownership or management.
We believe that effective weed eradication programs will include actions that are based on identifying weed locations, appropriate treatment/control measures and follow-up monitoring to determine continued strategies. We also believe that a state weed map system should be established and maintained under state control.
Any new State funding that becomes available for noxious weed control must be so directed that it goes through the established programs of noxious weed control existing within the Nevada Department of Agriculture.
It’s particularly troubling that the Department of Ag. has not been very active in pursuing weed abatement actions, in spite of funding provided for implementation a couple of sessions ago. So instead of doing what they have the ability to do already – they seek authority to levy fines.
Also a major problem of the legislation is that the proposal currently seeks to route the fines back into the states weed control operations. There is a reason that fines from traffic tickets don’t go to pay Highway Patrol officers -- the same principle should apply here. Administrative fines shouldn’t be a self-funding process for those operating the fine system.
If SB 110 should advance to any kind of vote, legislators should vote against passage.
Several years ago the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension surveyed Nevada farmers and ranchers to find out the top things on their priority list. Only one topic got more interest than weed control – protecting water for agricultural production.
In spite of the importance that Nevada agricultural producers place on weed control, a legislative proposal surfaced by the Nevada Department of Agriculture and submitted into the legislative process for the 2009 session by the Nevada Public Lands Committee – SB 110
SB 110 proposes to authorize the state quarantine officer (the Director for the Dept of Ag.) to adopt regulations to set up a system for administrative fines for non-control of noxious weeds. The legislative proposal envisions the possibility for these fines to go up to $1,000.
The weed fine program would fit into the current authority of the Department of Agriculture to take charge in controlling noxious weeds on someone’s property and then sending the property owner a bill for the control activity. In case the property owner doesn’t pay back the charges for control, the Dept. has the authority to place a lien on the property to force collection.
Farmers & Ranchers Say “No” To Weed Fine Idea:
Farm Bureau farmers and ranchers rejected the idea that establishing a fine program for non-compliance with weed control responsibilities.
Noxious Weed Control: 241
We support the change to NRS 555.203, supporting the change of the word “shall” to “may”. Weed districts established as a non-taxing entity should not be able to change that status without a vote of the property owners within the district.
Nevada Farm Bureau will work with the Nevada Board of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture to develop, fund and implement a plan of using state weed abatement laws (NRS 555) to require weeds to be controlled. We do not support the proposed action to create an intermediate fine process.
There must be cooperation and consultation between all appropriate local, state and federal agencies regarding noxious weed control measures on all lands, regardless of ownership or management.
We believe that effective weed eradication programs will include actions that are based on identifying weed locations, appropriate treatment/control measures and follow-up monitoring to determine continued strategies. We also believe that a state weed map system should be established and maintained under state control.
Any new State funding that becomes available for noxious weed control must be so directed that it goes through the established programs of noxious weed control existing within the Nevada Department of Agriculture.
It’s particularly troubling that the Department of Ag. has not been very active in pursuing weed abatement actions, in spite of funding provided for implementation a couple of sessions ago. So instead of doing what they have the ability to do already – they seek authority to levy fines.
Also a major problem of the legislation is that the proposal currently seeks to route the fines back into the states weed control operations. There is a reason that fines from traffic tickets don’t go to pay Highway Patrol officers -- the same principle should apply here. Administrative fines shouldn’t be a self-funding process for those operating the fine system.
If SB 110 should advance to any kind of vote, legislators should vote against passage.
Comments