What Should Local Role Be In Noxious Weed Control?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
In considering possible legislative solutions to Nevada’s noxious weed control efforts we have noted that the fix being considered in SB 110 (establishment of an administrative fine system) is not something we want – or even more importantly…not something that is needed. In our posts, preceding this piece, we outlined that one possible area that could need attention deals with the interface of the Nevada Department of Agriculture and county government.
The current law for noxious weed management has the Department of Agriculture through the State Quarantine Officer, receiving complaints in regard to noxious weeds that are not being appropriately managed. After investigation, the State Quarantine Officer is supposed to issue a written notice to the landowner (whoever that might be…private citizen, local, state or federal government) and in the event the notice is not acted on – turn the matter over to the county commission for action. The authority for the county commission includes the ability to take care of the weeds for the landowner – if they don’t – and issue them a bill for the treatment process. Unpaid bills can be collected through the issuance of a lien against the owner’s property.
We explained in our past commentary that this is an area that has drawn some push-back. County governments have indicated that they consider this to be an unfunded mandate on them, requiring them to take action on weed treatment without the financial resources to carry out the action. Vendors going out to treat noxious weeds are going to need to be paid, more often than not earlier than what a property lien might accomplish.
This same situation is the reason the Nevada Department of Agriculture received a legislative revolving fund of $100,000 a couple of legislative sessions ago. They too indicated that if they were to move forward with full abatement actions, somebody was going to need to be paid, in a more immediate fashion than a reluctant landowner might go along with.
Dealing With The “Unfunded” Mandate Problem:
There are probably a couple of different methods to go and our purpose is to only present some points for thinking...any option is worth consideration and possible selection.
Option: To end the “unfunded” problem, the statutes could be changed (even using a rewritten SB 110 to accomplish the task) to allow county commissioners the ability to tap in to the $100,000 revolving fund. It’s not “unfunded” if you provide the financial where-with-all to carry out the mission.
Option: To end the “mandate” problem, again possibly using SB 110, the current state law could be rewritten to take county commissioners out of the process.
While the proposed amendment by the Nevada Department of Agriculture seeks to potentially enhance the role of local weed control districts (their amendment, if adopted, would include the local weed control officer in having the authority to levy fines) – not all of Nevada is covered by weed control districts. There might also be reason to seriously evaluate whether expanding these districts authority is a good public policy course.
Enlisting Full Discourse:
Our organization was asked by the Nevada Department of Agriculture to support the proposal of implementing an administrative fine system. Through our public policy determination process, our members involved in policy development, through the adoption of our policy in opposition to the plan – said “No” to this approach.
How far beyond this deliberation the consideration was is not certain. We know that the Department of Agriculture presented the idea for the bill draft to the Nevada Legislature’s Public Lands Committee and they moved forward in bringing it to the 2009 Nevada Legislature.
The testimony on the bill so far has been in support of how important it is to control noxious weeds and Farm Bureau’s testimony on how we don’t support establishing an administrative fine process. Submitted almost as a passing thought…no public discussion has been given to the proposed amendment on whether local weed control officers should have authority to levy fines.
There also hasn’t been any input from the local weed control districts on the conditions they are dealing with to determine what their local regulations might be or whether they are having problems with getting landowner’s compliance.
County government has only weighed in with one county commissioner testifying in support of the bill, because controlling noxious weeds is an important thing to do, and the testimony of the Nevada Association of Counties noting that they want an amendment to make sure that county governments will be kept whole financially if and when the State Quarantine Officer calls on their district attorney’s office for investigation.
Before rushing forward to solve something that’s not broken with an administrative fine system that isn’t needed – let’s talk all these things through and go from there with solutions in dealing with a very critical matter – noxious weed management.
In considering possible legislative solutions to Nevada’s noxious weed control efforts we have noted that the fix being considered in SB 110 (establishment of an administrative fine system) is not something we want – or even more importantly…not something that is needed. In our posts, preceding this piece, we outlined that one possible area that could need attention deals with the interface of the Nevada Department of Agriculture and county government.
The current law for noxious weed management has the Department of Agriculture through the State Quarantine Officer, receiving complaints in regard to noxious weeds that are not being appropriately managed. After investigation, the State Quarantine Officer is supposed to issue a written notice to the landowner (whoever that might be…private citizen, local, state or federal government) and in the event the notice is not acted on – turn the matter over to the county commission for action. The authority for the county commission includes the ability to take care of the weeds for the landowner – if they don’t – and issue them a bill for the treatment process. Unpaid bills can be collected through the issuance of a lien against the owner’s property.
We explained in our past commentary that this is an area that has drawn some push-back. County governments have indicated that they consider this to be an unfunded mandate on them, requiring them to take action on weed treatment without the financial resources to carry out the action. Vendors going out to treat noxious weeds are going to need to be paid, more often than not earlier than what a property lien might accomplish.
This same situation is the reason the Nevada Department of Agriculture received a legislative revolving fund of $100,000 a couple of legislative sessions ago. They too indicated that if they were to move forward with full abatement actions, somebody was going to need to be paid, in a more immediate fashion than a reluctant landowner might go along with.
Dealing With The “Unfunded” Mandate Problem:
There are probably a couple of different methods to go and our purpose is to only present some points for thinking...any option is worth consideration and possible selection.
Option: To end the “unfunded” problem, the statutes could be changed (even using a rewritten SB 110 to accomplish the task) to allow county commissioners the ability to tap in to the $100,000 revolving fund. It’s not “unfunded” if you provide the financial where-with-all to carry out the mission.
Option: To end the “mandate” problem, again possibly using SB 110, the current state law could be rewritten to take county commissioners out of the process.
While the proposed amendment by the Nevada Department of Agriculture seeks to potentially enhance the role of local weed control districts (their amendment, if adopted, would include the local weed control officer in having the authority to levy fines) – not all of Nevada is covered by weed control districts. There might also be reason to seriously evaluate whether expanding these districts authority is a good public policy course.
Enlisting Full Discourse:
Our organization was asked by the Nevada Department of Agriculture to support the proposal of implementing an administrative fine system. Through our public policy determination process, our members involved in policy development, through the adoption of our policy in opposition to the plan – said “No” to this approach.
How far beyond this deliberation the consideration was is not certain. We know that the Department of Agriculture presented the idea for the bill draft to the Nevada Legislature’s Public Lands Committee and they moved forward in bringing it to the 2009 Nevada Legislature.
The testimony on the bill so far has been in support of how important it is to control noxious weeds and Farm Bureau’s testimony on how we don’t support establishing an administrative fine process. Submitted almost as a passing thought…no public discussion has been given to the proposed amendment on whether local weed control officers should have authority to levy fines.
There also hasn’t been any input from the local weed control districts on the conditions they are dealing with to determine what their local regulations might be or whether they are having problems with getting landowner’s compliance.
County government has only weighed in with one county commissioner testifying in support of the bill, because controlling noxious weeds is an important thing to do, and the testimony of the Nevada Association of Counties noting that they want an amendment to make sure that county governments will be kept whole financially if and when the State Quarantine Officer calls on their district attorney’s office for investigation.
Before rushing forward to solve something that’s not broken with an administrative fine system that isn’t needed – let’s talk all these things through and go from there with solutions in dealing with a very critical matter – noxious weed management.
Comments