When are appropriations for the President's SB144

Simply stated, when are appropriations for the President's SB144, Noxious Weed Control Act of 2004, anticipated?

This is a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, I think budgets are done a couple years in advance so the first opportunity to get it into the budget will be at the beginning of next fiscal year (which begins Oct 2005 in the budget for effective October 2006.

They will start presuring for money at the beginning of the new year and new session. But P'ville is right that it means nothing till 06 at the earliest (or later).

Yes, I know the process however do you have any knoweldge of who will be out there doing the pressuring? If it is the conservatives this time because their guy is in office... something might actually get done. I'm just curious as I'm not running into hardly any information on the Control Act. It is almost as if it is dead yet it is most assuredly on the books.

Has this been signed into law? If so, it should have an effective date with it.

I funding for enforcement is the key. W/o funding legality doesn't mean much.

That's true. I work with the laws in Michigan, so I wondered if this one was effective yet. At least in MI, the bills often say where the money is supposed to come from and how it is to be used. If it is signed into law that way, the money will be there. I am only familiar with MI, I have no idea how other states or the federal gov. do things.

Here is what I was able to find out about it:

S.144 was signed into law 10/30/2004 becoming Public Law No: 108-412. The title of the Act is Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004 and it requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a program to provide assistance to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate noxious weeds on public and private land.

The term `weed management entity' means an entity that--

`(A) is recognized by the State in which it is established;

`(B) is established for the purpose of or has demonstrable expertise and significant experience in controlling or eradicating noxious weeds and increasing public knowledge and education concerning the need to control or eradicate noxious weeds;

`(C) may be multijurisdictional and multidisciplinary in nature;

`(D) may include representatives from Federal, State, local, or, where applicable, Indian Tribe governments, private organizations, individuals, and State-recognized conservation districts or State-recognized weed management districts; and

`(E) has existing authority to perform land management activities on Federal land if the proposed project or activity is on Federal lands.

Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary shall enter into agreements with weed management entities to provide financial and technical assistance for the control or eradication of noxious weeds.

In determining the amount of a grant to a weed management entity, the Secretary shall consider--

`(1) the severity or potential severity of the noxious weed problem;

`(2) the extent to which the Federal funds will be used to leverage non-Federal funds to address the noxious weed problem;

`(3) the extent to which the weed management entity has made progress in addressing the noxious weeds problem; and

`(4) other factors that the Secretary determines to be relevant.

The Federal share of the cost of carrying out an authorized project exclusively on non-Federal land shall not exceed 50 percent.

Projects to be funded include the following:

`(1) Education, inventories and mapping, management, monitoring, methods development, and other capacity building activities, including the payment of the cost of personnel and equipment that promote control or eradication of noxious weeds.

`(2) Other activities to control or eradicate noxious weeds or promote control or eradication of noxious weeds.

At the request of the Governor of a State, the Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement with a weed management entity in that State to enable rapid response to outbreaks of noxious weeds at a stage which rapid eradication and control is possible and to ensure eradication or immediate control of the noxious weeds if--

`(1) there is a demonstrated need for the assistance;

`(2) the noxious weed is considered to be a significant threat to native fish, wildlife, or their habitats, as determined by the Secretary;

`(3) the economic impact of delaying action is considered by the Secretary to be substantial; and

`(4) the proposed response to such threat--

`(A) is technically feasible;

`(B) economically responsible; and

`(C) minimizes adverse impacts to the structure and function of an ecosystem and adverse effects on nontarget species and ecosystems.

`Funds under this Act are intended to supplement, not replace, assistance available to weed management entities, areas, and districts for control or eradication of noxious weeds on Federal lands and non-Federal lands.

To carry out section 454, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $7,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, of which not more than 5 percent of the funds made available for a fiscal year may be used by the Secretary for administrative costs.

To carry out section 455 of this subtitle, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $7,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, of which not more than 5 percent of the funds made available for a fiscal year may be used by the Secretary for administrative costs of Federal agencies.'.

Full text may be read by going to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery clicking on "text of legislation" at bottom of page, and then "S.144.ENR" at the bottom of that page.

Bottom line as I read it is that states have to apply and competitively compete for grants and must be able to fund at least 50% of their own projects. So I would think the pressure would need to be to get state weed management entities to apply for a grant.

Thanks for all the info, and all the typing. This looks kind of floppy unfortunately. Sec of Ag to establish a program to assist is pretty loose wording where laws are concerned. I think it is probably a good start, but it will definitely need a driving force behind it for each state.

I got an A in Cut and Paste 101 :-)

DId I really say "competitively compete"? LOL.....(goes off to stand in line in the Department of Reduncdancies Department).

Ah, I figured you'd copied it because it looks way too much like legalese for normal people to write, but cut and paste is a great idea. I often end up with things pasted in the wrong documents, so I do a lot of typing.

Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary shall enter into agreements with weed management entities to provide financial and technical assistance for the control or eradication of noxious weeds.

Bear in mind that the Sec of Agriculture just quit and not sure who is going to take her place.

People who will be asking for money will be people like State Weed Managers, Tamarisk Coalition, TNC, etc...With billions of dollars bing cut from every single DoD environmental program (including weeds, erosion control, fire management, etc....) I personally wouldn't expect anything in the near future as far as money is concerned unless the drought continues and worsens.



This message was edited Nov 20, 2004 9:20 AM

Forgot
If someone less than supportive moves into the Sec of Ag job then expect this bit:
(2) the noxious weed is considered to be a significant threat to native fish, wildlife, or their habitats, as determined by the Secretary;
to be tied to the Endangered Species Act. That is it could be very difficult to get money for any weed control unless it's denonstrated without a doubt that a specific species is further threatened because of x weed(s). It will work for some instances but clearly not all lands will meet this criteria.


This message was edited Nov 20, 2004 7:19 AM

This message was edited Nov 20, 2004 9:15 AM

I'm having a brain fart this morning.....
I find this a litte dubious anyway....."(2) the noxious weed is considered to be a significant threat to native fish, wildlife, or their habitats, as determined by the Secretary" as the jusridiction for and designation of habitat for native species is that of the Deptment of the Interior, not the Department of Agriculture.

"considered to be a significant threat to native fish, wildlife, or their habitats, as determined by the Secretary"... a spoon full of sugar makes the medicine go down!

How convenient for that ambiguous language to be in existence.

Are you surprised?

No, I'm not surprised. I saw it but I chose not to comment. Either way, the mere fact that information regarding it is flooding the Internet is good enough for me in that maybe... just maybe... people like me might be left alone to tend to my own property and will not be viewed as being in need of a nice little white straight jacket for wanting to get rid of what others view as beautiful or productive. Wasn't Satan touted as having been God's most beautiful angel... sort of reminds me of water hyacinth. If that isn't one of the most knock down gorgeous water plants out there that has extremely desirable qualities to such the extent that people will knowingly seek it out... I'll eat my shoe! With all the information on that species that has hit the net in just the last year, I can't believe any gardener/ponder who has read about it would even want it any where near them no matter how efficient of a plant it can be in one's pond or water feature. Seriously, how many people have a good working knowledge of the complex issues of and or associated with these exotic invaders? Public awareness is being heightened in part due to websites like this where gardeners can openly discuss these issues and how they impact them. My biggest fear is that some do gooder out there is going to rile up a bunch of people in my community and we're going to end up with an incredibly restrictive environment. There was already talk of disallowing people from owning goldfish or carp because so many people were releasing them into ponds and lakes. I really don't want to be punished for all the people out there who are of the mindset that "just this one time won't matter" and "everybody else is doing it so why shouldn't I".

"as determined by the Secretary" = subjective = political decision!

Equil:

Never. It's another one of them un-funded mandates. Enforcement dependant upon people who couldn't care less and are anti-evironment in the first place.

Sorry, water hyacinth fans...pretty-wise, lobelia cardinalis blows it out of the water, and in more ways than one. LOL!