A Benevolent Bureaucracy
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
On April 29th a hearing was held in the Nevada Assembly’s Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining Committee, focusing on a proposed piece of legislation that has been sought by the Nevada Department of Agriculture to obtain the authority for creating and implementing an administrative fine system for non-compliance with noxious weed laws and regulations. The legislation, Senate Bill 110, is the bill which would grant the authority for the Department of Agriculture and local weed control districts the authority to establish and administer an administrative fine system with fines up to $1,000 for violations.
From the testimony provided by the Department of Agriculture, this legislation would give them another tool in their toolbox for making progress on control and management of noxious weeds in the state. It is a tool that isn’t necessary and should not be authorized.
We are told, in the testimony of the Department of Agriculture, that it would not be their policy to use this administrative fine process for punitive actions for those who were cooperating in controlling their weeds – only those who won’t. The testimony then shares the account of recent history (2008) when 25 property owners were identified as needing to be told to take corrective actions. 22 of the 25 property owners complied and did what they were asked and the three “open cases” involved people who were not able to afford to spray their weeds, but did agree and complied with measures to mow the weeds before the weeds went to seed. This was accepted as being a legitimate control measure.
With only one exception this process of compliance has been accomplished. In 2006 an action was taken, within the provisions of Nevada law, to carry out an abatement action on a property owner who had not complied with the directive to control the noxious weeds on their property. The Department of Agriculture saw that the necessary control action was taken and the property owner was billed for the costs of the weeds being treated. The property owner paid off the costs for the treatment, reimbursing the Department of Agriculture for the costs that they incurred.
In other words, using existing law has worked just fine. No need to fix something that’s not broken (at least from our perspective).
Getting back to the testimony from the Department that doesn’t plan (and actually has a current policy) to not punish those who are trying – it was noted that a couple of the people on the list of those getting the letters for corrective action have gotten the same letter before (and took the same action of complying with the directive). It was strongly suggested that these people would be in line for possible fines, because they had to be told again to do something about their weeds.
There is a very thin line between being a benevolent bureaucracy (only doing good things for those who are cared about) and being a regulatory bureaucracy doing what needs to be done to carry out their responsibilities.
Those who are in charge of this bureaucracy don’t seem to be able to recognize that line.
Hopefully, a majority of the legislators serving on the Assembly Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining Committee will be able to send a clear message (through the defeat of S.B. 110) that there is no reason for our state Department of Agriculture to have the authority they seek in becoming even more of a regulatory agency.
On April 29th a hearing was held in the Nevada Assembly’s Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining Committee, focusing on a proposed piece of legislation that has been sought by the Nevada Department of Agriculture to obtain the authority for creating and implementing an administrative fine system for non-compliance with noxious weed laws and regulations. The legislation, Senate Bill 110, is the bill which would grant the authority for the Department of Agriculture and local weed control districts the authority to establish and administer an administrative fine system with fines up to $1,000 for violations.
From the testimony provided by the Department of Agriculture, this legislation would give them another tool in their toolbox for making progress on control and management of noxious weeds in the state. It is a tool that isn’t necessary and should not be authorized.
We are told, in the testimony of the Department of Agriculture, that it would not be their policy to use this administrative fine process for punitive actions for those who were cooperating in controlling their weeds – only those who won’t. The testimony then shares the account of recent history (2008) when 25 property owners were identified as needing to be told to take corrective actions. 22 of the 25 property owners complied and did what they were asked and the three “open cases” involved people who were not able to afford to spray their weeds, but did agree and complied with measures to mow the weeds before the weeds went to seed. This was accepted as being a legitimate control measure.
With only one exception this process of compliance has been accomplished. In 2006 an action was taken, within the provisions of Nevada law, to carry out an abatement action on a property owner who had not complied with the directive to control the noxious weeds on their property. The Department of Agriculture saw that the necessary control action was taken and the property owner was billed for the costs of the weeds being treated. The property owner paid off the costs for the treatment, reimbursing the Department of Agriculture for the costs that they incurred.
In other words, using existing law has worked just fine. No need to fix something that’s not broken (at least from our perspective).
Getting back to the testimony from the Department that doesn’t plan (and actually has a current policy) to not punish those who are trying – it was noted that a couple of the people on the list of those getting the letters for corrective action have gotten the same letter before (and took the same action of complying with the directive). It was strongly suggested that these people would be in line for possible fines, because they had to be told again to do something about their weeds.
There is a very thin line between being a benevolent bureaucracy (only doing good things for those who are cared about) and being a regulatory bureaucracy doing what needs to be done to carry out their responsibilities.
Those who are in charge of this bureaucracy don’t seem to be able to recognize that line.
Hopefully, a majority of the legislators serving on the Assembly Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining Committee will be able to send a clear message (through the defeat of S.B. 110) that there is no reason for our state Department of Agriculture to have the authority they seek in becoming even more of a regulatory agency.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 4/29/2009 4:06 PM 
Categories: Nevada Legislature
Tags: Nevada Department of Agriculture Noxious Weeds Agriculture
Categories: Nevada Legislature
Tags: Nevada Department of Agriculture Noxious Weeds Agriculture
Comments