HOUSE BILL REPORT

2SSB 6291

BYSenate Committee on Ways & Means (originally sponsored by Senators Hansen, Barr and Rasmussen)

Regulating purple loosestrife.

House Committe on Agriculture & Rural Development

Majority Report:  Do pass as amended.  (9)

      Signed by Representatives Rayburn, Chair; Kremen, Vice Chair; Nealey, Ranking Republican Member; Baugher, Doty, Grant, Jesernig, Kirby and McLean.

House Staff:Kenneth Hirst (786- 7105)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT

FEBRUARY 28, 1990

BACKGROUND:

The State Noxious Weed Control Board identifies the plants considered to be noxious weeds in this state.  The board categorizes the weeds as follows: Class A weeds which must be controlled or eradicated wherever they appear in the state; Class B weeds which must be controlled regionally; and Class C weeds which local weed boards may choose to control locally.  Purple loosestrife, lythrum salicaria, is a Class B weed.

The county noxious weed control boards, weed districts, and the Department of Agriculture have the responsibility of administering control programs for plants the state board has designated as being noxious weeds.

SUMMARY:

BILL AS AMENDED:  The Departments of Agriculture and Wildlife and the State Noxious Weed Control Board must jointly develop a control and eradication program for purple loosestrife, lythrum salicaria.  The goals of the program are:  (1) to eliminate the spread of the plant in the short term; and (2) to eradicate the major infested areas by December 1995, unless a program over a different interval can be shown to be equally effective and less costly.  The state board must report to the Legislature by December 1, 1995, regarding the status of the control and eradication program.

The portion of the program for controlling and eradicating purple loosestrife on lands owned or managed by the Department of Wildlife is to be funded as follows:  one-third from funds appropriated from the general fund for this purpose; one-third from funds appropriated from the wildlife fund for this purpose; and one-third from other sources.  Not more than 2 percent of funds appropriated for purple loosestrife control may be used for administrative purposes.

The sale or use of viable purple loosestrife seed or plant material is prohibited. The Department of Agriculture may assess fines of up to $100 for violations.

This act is null and void unless funding for it is provided by the omnibus appropriations act by June 30, 1990.

AMENDED BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The amendments:  remove from the bill a reference to monies being appropriated to the Department of Agriculture for transfer to the Department of Wildlife under certain circumstances; and permit only the Department of Agriculture (not the department and the state board) to levy fines.

Fiscal Note:      Requested February 28, 1990.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Senator Hansen; William Frederickson, Franklin County Weed Board; Donald Rasmossen, Washington State Weed Board; and Rick Johnson, Thurston County Weed Board (in part).

House Committee - Testified Against:      Jack Davis, Chuck Sisco, and Charles Chambers, Black Hills Audubon Society; Jeff Parsons, National Audubon Society (in part); Lee Smith, Department of Wildlife; and Mary Fries.

House Committee - Testimony For:    (1) Purple loosestrife, a weed imported from Europe, is replacing native vegetation in the state's wetlands.  The weed is not suited for use by wildlife; its spread destroys these wetlands.  (2) The Department of Wildlife should not be able to buy any new lands until it properly manages the lands it currently has.  If there is not enough money to control the loosestrife, there should not be any for new purchases.  (3) The state is losing wetlands to loosestrife faster than it can purchase additional wetlands.  (4) Approval of effective biological controls for the weed will not happen soon.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      (1) When this bill and the Senate budget bill are viewed together, the bill supports only the chemical control of purple loosestrife.  Effective herbicides kill the native plants too; this helps the hearty loosestrife spread even faster.  (2) Aerial spraying of wetlands places only about 1 percent of the spray on the targeted plants; the remainder helps destroy beneficial vegetation.  Spraying from backpacks, though more selective, would cost $29 million on Department of Wildlife lands alone.  (3) The bill plus the Senate budget would require the Department of Wildlife to divert $500,000 from its current operating budget as matching monies for loosestrife control.  This would require the department to lay off 29 people, who could be used in managing lands.  (4) Biological controls will probably be available within a couple of years.  Such controls are far more plant specific and effective in controlling weeds in the long term.  (5) Eradication of purple loosestrife is not a reasonable objective.  (6) Support for public education is necessary.