Fixing What Actually Might Be Broken
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Since the Nevada Senate Natural Resource Committee scheduled a hearing on SB 110, we’ve been spending a lot of time focusing on the state’s noxious weed laws. The upside for the concentration on digging into what the state law says – we’ve been able to clear up some misunderstandings that we’ve had on how the abatement process is supposed to be carried through.
We’ve also been able to see where the current system might warrant attention.
The proposed legislation is based on the idea that landowner compliance will be improved through the ability to levy administrative fines, possibly as high as $1,000. A proposed amendment, from the Department of Agriculture, would also expand this authority for imposing administrative fines to more local levels by granting Weed Control Officers the same ability to charge landowners a fine for non-compliance.
Non-Compliance May Not Be A Problem:
During the testimony on the legislation, Department of Agriculture representatives, who operate the program, noted that over the past year they sent out 25 notice letters to landowners. This is one of the first steps in the process (investigating the complaint is officially the first step). In testimony, the report indicated that 22 landowners receiving the letters carried out the requested steps of weed treatment. It was also stated that the three “open cases” complied by cutting the weeds before maturing to a stage where they would reproduce.
In describing the possible use of fines, the same representative indicated that of those receiving the notices two persons had gotten the notices in past years. These folks might be subject to the fines being envisioned by the Department. This expansion of what compliance entails is part of the concerns we have with the direction being contemplated. Compliance should be treating the weeds – not instituting fines because we told you last year.
Without the legislation actually being passed and the actual regulations being worked through, it is not possible to have specific evidence to point at and take exception too, however looking at the track-record and seeing that compliance is as high as it has been; leads us to wonder why fines are a tool that should be added to the toolbox?
Yes, This Might Be Something To Work On:
Nevada Farm Bureau policy, the guidance we follow in working on legislative or other public policy activities supports the current authority abatement system found in NRS Chapter 555. When you sort through the statutes and listen carefully to the debates that have played out over the past several years, you notice that one of the problems in how the current system works (or is supposed to work) is the process after the notices have been issued and the landowner has possibly not taken corrective actions.
The law (NRS 555.170) brings the respective County Commission into play with the State Quarantine Officer turning the matter of non-compliance over to them for action.
With local government budgets hard-pressed to meet other needs, the impression has been given that this step of local government involvement is an “unfunded mandate” that they don’t have the means to deal with – regardless of their support for weed control.
The alternative method for full-fledged Department of Agriculture implemented abatement, used once that we are aware of, took the approach outlined in NRS 555.110. This tact involves the Department declaring the property where the noxious weeds are not treated as a “public nuisance”. Through this system of operation, the Department is able to work directly with the landowner and not have to go through the County Commission and the unfunded mandate challenge.
If we are going to look at fixing something that is actually a problem – maybe dealing with the way the process plays out would be more appropriate than establishing an administrative penalty operation…
Since the Nevada Senate Natural Resource Committee scheduled a hearing on SB 110, we’ve been spending a lot of time focusing on the state’s noxious weed laws. The upside for the concentration on digging into what the state law says – we’ve been able to clear up some misunderstandings that we’ve had on how the abatement process is supposed to be carried through.
We’ve also been able to see where the current system might warrant attention.
The proposed legislation is based on the idea that landowner compliance will be improved through the ability to levy administrative fines, possibly as high as $1,000. A proposed amendment, from the Department of Agriculture, would also expand this authority for imposing administrative fines to more local levels by granting Weed Control Officers the same ability to charge landowners a fine for non-compliance.
Non-Compliance May Not Be A Problem:
During the testimony on the legislation, Department of Agriculture representatives, who operate the program, noted that over the past year they sent out 25 notice letters to landowners. This is one of the first steps in the process (investigating the complaint is officially the first step). In testimony, the report indicated that 22 landowners receiving the letters carried out the requested steps of weed treatment. It was also stated that the three “open cases” complied by cutting the weeds before maturing to a stage where they would reproduce.
In describing the possible use of fines, the same representative indicated that of those receiving the notices two persons had gotten the notices in past years. These folks might be subject to the fines being envisioned by the Department. This expansion of what compliance entails is part of the concerns we have with the direction being contemplated. Compliance should be treating the weeds – not instituting fines because we told you last year.
Without the legislation actually being passed and the actual regulations being worked through, it is not possible to have specific evidence to point at and take exception too, however looking at the track-record and seeing that compliance is as high as it has been; leads us to wonder why fines are a tool that should be added to the toolbox?
Yes, This Might Be Something To Work On:
Nevada Farm Bureau policy, the guidance we follow in working on legislative or other public policy activities supports the current authority abatement system found in NRS Chapter 555. When you sort through the statutes and listen carefully to the debates that have played out over the past several years, you notice that one of the problems in how the current system works (or is supposed to work) is the process after the notices have been issued and the landowner has possibly not taken corrective actions.
The law (NRS 555.170) brings the respective County Commission into play with the State Quarantine Officer turning the matter of non-compliance over to them for action.
With local government budgets hard-pressed to meet other needs, the impression has been given that this step of local government involvement is an “unfunded mandate” that they don’t have the means to deal with – regardless of their support for weed control.
The alternative method for full-fledged Department of Agriculture implemented abatement, used once that we are aware of, took the approach outlined in NRS 555.110. This tact involves the Department declaring the property where the noxious weeds are not treated as a “public nuisance”. Through this system of operation, the Department is able to work directly with the landowner and not have to go through the County Commission and the unfunded mandate challenge.
If we are going to look at fixing something that is actually a problem – maybe dealing with the way the process plays out would be more appropriate than establishing an administrative penalty operation…
Yes, it makes sense to clarify existing laws rather than adopting fines as a measure for control, especially without using the fine to directly fund weed abatement for the site. Sometimes it takes years of costly treatment to control populations of noxious weeds, tall whitetop for example. Why impose the burden of fines in addition to the cost the owner will pay for weed control?
Reply to this