HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 1743
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in
their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a
statement of legislative intent.
As Reported by House Committee On:
Agriculture & Natural Resources
Title: An act relating to noxious weed control boards.
Brief Description: Requiring the appointment of county noxious weed control boards.
Sponsors: Representatives Kretz, B. Sullivan, Sump, Upthegrove and Linville.
Brief History:
Agriculture & Natural Resources: 2/8/07, 2/13/07 [DP].
Brief Summary of Bill |
|
|
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE & NATURAL RESOURCES
Majority Report: Do pass. Signed by 15 members: Representatives B. Sullivan, Chair; Blake, Vice Chair; Kretz, Ranking Minority Member; Warnick, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Dickerson, Eickmeyer, Grant, Hailey, Kagi, Lantz, McCoy, Newhouse, Orcutt, Strow and VanDeWege.
Staff: Meg Van Schoorl (786-7105).
Background:
Noxious Weeds
Noxious weeds are defined in law as plants that, when established, are highly destructive,
competitive, or difficult to control by cultural or chemical practices. Having been primarily
brought into the state by human action and having no significant natural enemies such as
insects or diseases, these plants can multiply rapidly and cause crop losses, reduce
biodiversity, and impact fish and wildlife. Noxious weeds are divided into three categories.
Class A are noxious weeds that are of limited distribution or are unrecorded in the state and
that pose a serious threat to the state (examples: kudzu, Italian thistle). Class B are noxious
weeds that are of limited distribution or are unrecorded in a region of the state and that pose a
serious threat to that region (examples: Japanese knotweed; purple loosestrife). Class C are
any other noxious weeds (examples: babysbreath; common tansy).
Noxious Weed Control
The purpose of Chapter 17.10 RCW, Noxious Weeds - Control Boards, is "to limit economic
loss and adverse effects to Washington's agricultural, natural, and human resources due to the
presence and spread of noxious weeds on all terrestrial and aquatic areas in the state."
Current law delineates the duties of land owners and state agencies to control the spread of
noxious weeds, and provides for the creation of state, regional, and county noxious weed
control boards.
Currently, 38 of the state's 39 counties have activated county noxious weed control boards.
The Director of the Department, with the advice of the State Board, has the power to require
county legislative authorities, county noxious weed control boards, and weed districts to
report information, respond to complaints with plans for control, and take immediate action
to eradicate or control an infestation.
Summary of Bill:
Beginning on January 1, 2008, each county must have a county board in place, appointed in
the manner prescribed in law. For any county in which the county legislative authority fails
to make county board appointments by that date, the Director of the Department (Director)
and the State Board must jointly appoint and manage the county board until the county
legislative authority assumes responsibility. The county will be held liable for paying the
state's expenses, and the Director is authorized to bring civil action against the county in
court to collect payment.
A county board may be deactivated only if the county legislative authority holds a hearing at
which an official from the State Board confirms that the Class A or B noxious weeds
designated for control in the region are absent in the county, and that there is no need at
present to continue the county board. Once deactivated, if at any time Class A or B noxious
weeds designated for control in the region are found in the county, then the county board
must be activated. If the county legislative authority fails to activate and appoint the county
board, then the Director of the Department and the State Board shall jointly appoint the
county board.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Available.
Effective Date: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
(In support) I have had a couple of experiences on my own property that made me appreciate
the functioning noxious weed control board in our county. I received a good education on
what negative impacts noxious weeds have on the ecosystem and was able to use bio-controls
successfully on musk-thistle. Douglas County is the only county in our state without an
activated noxious weed control board. People from Douglas County are coming to Okanogan
for technical assistance on weed control, and we are glad to help, however the Okanogan
Board is funded by assessments on landowners in our county. I mostly like what I see in the
bill but until the "may" on page 8, section 15, changes to "shall", the bill still leaves it up to
the Department to carry through with getting the board running. The Washington State
Noxious Weed Control Board has surveyed Douglas county four times since 1990 and found
Class B designate weeds each time. All four surrounding counties have filed official
complaints with the Department, yet Douglas County still has no board. The State Noxious
Weed Board does not have the staff or resources to manage the county's program. It is
imperative to treat all counties equally in the enforcement of law. County boards can adapt
their programs to suit landowners' needs. County boards are the enforcement arm for the
state law.
(Opposed) Douglas County is not sitting still. The Foster Creek Conservation District
(Conservation District) has led a biological weed control program since 1999 and has had a
cost-share on herbicide treatments. We have worked with landowners successfully on a
voluntary, non-confrontative, non-assessment basis. We provide training, information,
pesticide recertification, and outreach. We are now looking at forming a coordinated weed
management area which is nonregulatory alignment of state, local, and federal weed control.
The county supervisors and landowners have a concern about instituting an assessment on
land to pay for a county control board. The Conservation Disctrict has no enforcement
authority. If there is a "bad actor" that refuses to deal with noxious weed infestation, instead
of using enforcement mechanisms there are contractual obligations that under the
Conservation Reserve Program the United States Department of Agriculture can use to force
landowners to control weeds or lose their contracts. Douglas County has answered the
complaint letters from neighboring counties by going to the landowners who had weeds and
they each cleaned theirs up. One size does not fit all. Weed boards are politically unpopular
and seen as frivolous spending of taxpayer money. We don't want to add a burden to
overtaxed farmers.
Persons Testifying: (In support) Representative Kretz, prime sponsor; Ray Fann,
Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board; Anna Lyon, Okanogan County Noxious
Weed Board; and Bob Gish, Backcountry Horseman of Washington.
(Opposed) Mary Hunt, Douglas County Commission; Britt Dudek, Foster Creek
Conservation District; Paul Malone; Margaret Viebrock, Washington State University
Extension; and Rusty Hunt.