|
|
| |
|
| STATEMENT
OF FRED V. GRAU, JR.
PRESIDENT, GRASSLYN, INC. TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION AND PUBLIC LANDS HEARING ON S. 144, A BILL TO REQUIRE THE SECTRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ESTABLISH A PROGRAM TO PROVIDE ASISTANCE THROUGH STATES TO ELIGIBLE WEED MANAGEMENT ENTITIES TO CONTROL OR ERADICATE HARMFUL, NONATIVE WEEDS ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND. 29 APRIL 2004 Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members for the privilege of testifying today. My name is Fred Grau, President of Grasslyn, Inc., a family-owned farming and crownvetch seed business based in State College, Pennsylvania and Snyder, Colorado. The opinions expressed are mine alone and should not be viewed as those of any trade or advocacy organization. But they do come from a lifetime in agriculture. They are also derived from five years of research into the native-species-only “Invasive Species” agenda. This testimony is based on these two perspectives. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other environmental laws have shown that it is wise to pay close attention to subtle phraseology in otherwise worthy land-use legislation. The law of unintended consequences is the rule, not the exception. Likewise, there are many who believe that there will be similar consequences from “Invasive Species” unless some definitions are overhauled. Why? Because the broad definition states that any species nonnative to an ecosystem and that could cause harm to the environment is “invasive”. In seed and agriculture, we have already seen where many economically useful species have had their use curtailed, even prohibited, due to “invasive” listing because they are nonnative. We have also seen ESA-type mitigation requirements. As with the ESA, it is almost certain that in the future, courts will re-interpret original intent of “Invasive Species”. Lead agencies are also important. It is unlikely that the Department of Agriculture (USDA) would become engaged in actions that would lead to the detriment of food producers. In short, noxious weeds should remain under the purview of the Department of Agriculture, not Interior, as they are clearly the ones who have the expertise in this area. So what could be done with S. 144 to maximize its intent (control weeds) and minimize unintended consequences? Assuming that a plant’s origin is irrelevant to its harmfulness, the terms “harmful”, “noxious”, or best yet, “weed, whether native or nonnative” could be used everywhere in the bill to replace “Invasive Species”, “invasive” and “nonnative”. Otherwise it would be technically illegal to use the funds from S. 144 to control poison ivy, dodder and wild grape. (They are native.) Left as is, S. 144 would have the unintended consequence of allowing funding to control or eradicate tall fescue, orchardgrass and day lilies. (They are nonnative.) Because the stated intent of S. 144 is to control weeds, perhaps the lead agency should be USDA, whose structure and responsibilities are already in that domain under the Morrill Act (Land Grant Universities), Smith-Lever Act (Cooperative Extension) and the Plant Protection Act (weeds). Under USDA, all weed, education and “increasing public knowledge” requirements in the bill would be met by these existing authorities. To do so would require the Secretary to be that of Agriculture instead of Interior. An added benefit of USDA as lead agency would be that the “entities knowledgeable about and experienced in weed management” already exist in the form of USDA-related Conservation Districts. Directed by local, knowledgeable and practical folks, these efficient organizations would maximize the financial and environmental intent of S. 144. The need to create “new management entities” would be minimized in some cases and even eliminated in others. Finally, if the above changes are made, the need to consult with the Invasive Species Council or its Advisory Committee would be eliminated. All authorities would be covered and local expertise employed to maximize the effectiveness of this bill. This concludes my testimony. Again, thank you for this opportunity.
|