SHB 1707
In CommitteeHouse
Noxious weeds list/crops
Establishing a review process before the state noxious weed control board may list certain agricultural crops as noxious weeds.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill prevents the State Noxious Weed Control Board from listing agricultural crops as noxious weeds unless it first holds a public hearing and reviews recommendations from a work group that includes agricultural producers and a board member. It also adds new requirements for scientific and economic evidence before such listings can proceed.
- Requires the State Noxious Weed Control Board to hold a public hearing and receive recommendations from a work group convened by the Department of Agriculture before listing an agricultural crop as a noxious weed.
- Establishes new criteria for the board’s guidelines, including requiring additional scientific data and evidence of economic benefits before listing a plant, especially if it is an agricultural crop.
- Prohibits listing agricultural crops as noxious weeds unless the work group includes affected agricultural producers and at least one member of the board.
- Maintains existing process allowing public requests to add, remove, or change a plant’s status on the noxious weed list during public comment periods.
- Requires the board to document written findings for each listing and make them available to the public upon request.
Who is affected
- Agricultural producers — Agricultural producers who grow crops that could be considered for listing as noxious weeds will have a formal opportunity to provide input through work groups before any listing decision is made.
- Department of Agriculture — The Department of Agriculture will be responsible for convening work groups and facilitating the review process before the Noxious Weed Control Board acts on crop-related listings.
- State Noxious Weed Control Board — The State Noxious Weed Control Board must now follow stricter procedural steps—including public hearings and work group input—before listing agricultural crops as noxious weeds.
- County and local weed control boards — County noxious weed control boards and weed districts will receive updated weed lists and may be affected if certain crops are reclassified, potentially changing local control priorities.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (3)
By requiring work groups to include agricultural producers and holding public hearings before listing a crop as a noxious weed, the bill gives growers direct input into decisions that could restrict their ability to plant or sell certain crops—protecting livelihoods and reducing regulatory surprise for small and mid-sized farms.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)The requirement for written findings and public availability of listing decisions increases transparency and accountability, enabling farmers and the public to understand and challenge regulatory decisions—strengthening due process in agricultural regulation.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)Requiring scientific and economic evidence before listing may reduce arbitrary or politically motivated listings, potentially preventing misallocation of state and county weed control resources—though this benefit is modest and depends on rigorous implementation.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(2)
Potential Concerns (3)
Adding procedural hurdles (public hearings, work group review) before listing agricultural crops as noxious weeds may delay or prevent the regulation of invasive species that threaten native ecosystems, crop production, and public lands—potentially increasing long-term pest management costs and ecological damage.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 2(2)Requiring evidence of “positive economic benefits” before listing a crop as a noxious weed conflates regulatory goals (preventing invasiveness) with economic utility, potentially allowing high-risk species to remain unlisted if they benefit a narrow subset of growers—even if they threaten broader ecological health.
EnvironmentRef: Sec. 2(2)County weed boards and districts may face increased administrative burden and conflicting directives if the state delays or blocks listings that local agencies have already prioritized, undermining coordinated regional weed management efforts.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)
Who Is Most Affected
Small and mid-sized crop producers benefit significantly: they gain formal input rights before a crop could be banned, reducing risk of sudden regulatory penalties or lost markets. However, large-scale producers with more resources may benefit disproportionately from the work group process.
The Department of Agriculture gains new administrative responsibilities (convening work groups, facilitating hearings), which may strain limited staff resources without additional funding—though it gains clearer statutory authority over the process.
County weed boards and districts may face delays in implementing urgent weed control measures if state-level listings are blocked or delayed, potentially undermining local priorities and increasing long-term control costs.
Environmental advocates and native ecosystem stewards may see weakened regulatory responses to invasive species that also have agricultural uses (e.g., Himalayan blackberry, knotweeds), risking increased ecological harm and higher public land management costs.
Consumers may face indirect effects if invasive species spread due to delayed listings, potentially increasing food prices or reducing availability of certain crops—but this is speculative and likely minor.