Citizens question need for more taxes, regulation at Weed Control Board Hearing
by Mary Swoboda

May 17, 2001 - Mason County, WA - In 1975, by law, noxious weed control boards were created, one for every county in Washington. Each county could choose whether or not to activate their weed control board (RCW 17.10.020). 

Along with most other counties, Mason County activated a weed board, but chose to deactivate it in the mid '80s. Recently, a petition was filed with over 100 signatures in support of reactivating a weed board. According to RCW 17.10.040, this action requires Mason County commissioners to hold a hearing "to determine whether there is a need, DUE TO A DAMAGING INFESTATION OF NOXIOUS WEEDS, to activate the county noxious weed control board.” Commissioners Mary Jo Cady, Herb Baze and Wes Johnson held two hearings. These notes are from the hearing in Belfair on Thursday, May 17, 2001.

The first to speak was APRIL CASSELL, who admitted she doesn’t like higher taxes or bigger government, but supports the formation of a weed board in Mason County because of noxious weeds such as milfoil. According to Ms.
Cassell, the unchecked growth of milfoil can inhibit fish and swimmers and
in some cases cause drowning.

JUD REYNOLDS said he was there to speak for others who couldn’t attend the hearing. He asked who would be doing the weed monitoring? Would board
members get repaid for mileage or would they have access to a county
vehicle? Regarding property assessments quoted in newspaper articles, Mr.
Reynolds thought the annual assessed figure of $75,000 would end up being
far higher. "People's cynicism must be understood," he concluded.

In reply, COMMISSIONER MARY JO CADY emphasized that no dollar amount had been set to tax property owners; it was strictly rumor and not true. The county expects to receive some federal dollars and, although there would be a lot of strings attached, the funds could make it possible for the county
to fund the weed control board without assessing property tax.

[**Comment: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his
need." There are always people who can't -- or won't -- provide for
themselves, who are thus "in need." Their "need" then becomes a demand on
those who are able and willing to earn their own way. The government takes
those earnings from taxpayers and redistributes it to those "in need." The
average taxpayer works nearly 6 months a year to provide funds that the
government controls. Yet people seem to think the government has a big bag
of “free” money to hand out that doesn’t cost anybody anything! Federal
money -- grant money -- is merely taxpayers’ money redistributed to those
“in need.” “Federal dollars” may be available this year, or even for a few
years; but sooner or later, what government gives, government takes away.
The burden of maintaining bureaucracies and the resulting entitlements
created by federal “gifts” always ends up on the backs of taxpayers. (A good
example of this is our very own Mason Transit.) –Mary**]

CONNIE ADAMS said Mason County needs a weed board because Pierce County is complaining that weeds from Mason County are encroaching on their county.

IRENE GOLDSBY asked if the commissioners have looked at other counties and how they administer their weed boards. "There are so many different entities already; I'm seeing another bureaucracy."  "We patrol our own property, but there will always be noxious weeds," she concluded.

RON ROSS, member of Kitsap County’s Weed Control Board, spoke at length. He said he was the first to volunteer when their weed board was activated two years ago because he didn't want to see it turn into a bureaucracy. He explained that their function is primarily to satisfy the state law. "We are education oriented. We have no salary; we are all volunteers. We have no budget. We have a quarter- or half-time employee through the Parks
Department to help with taking minutes."

Kitsap County’s weed board initially thought they should create some
literature to distribute about the bad weeds, but soon discovered there are
plenty of weed control districts that have already created literature.
“Don't reinvent the wheel,” he said. Instead, contact other boards to see if
they will share their literature. Mr. Ross welcomes anyone to attend Kitsap
County's weed board meetings. “We can always use suggestions,” he said.

Mr. Ross thinks there are other ways to deal with weeds rather than through
a weed control board, such as working with existing government entities like
the soil conservation district, cooperative extension agent or Parks
Department.

Regarding the fresh water problems and the need to do something, Mr. Ross
thinks a bureaucracy is not going to be effective. For example, most of the
lakes in Kitsap have county property on them and the county isn't taking
care of their own weed problems. “Unless we become the weed cop, we aren't
going to be able to force anyone.” He has told his commissioners the county
needs to take care of their property first. “I don't want to go after my
neighbors and their weeds until I can't find any weeds on county property,”
he concluded.

The commissioners had a few questions for Mr. Ross:

Herb Baze: Do you have salaries?

Mr. Ross: We decided to have no salary. There may be a state statute to
provide $50 per meeting or something like that, but all of us have chosen to
volunteer. There may be one or two who claim a mileage allowance; the
paperwork involved wasn't worth claiming it for myself.

Wes Johnson: Any idea what the budget is for your weed board?

Mr. Ross: We have no budget; we operate without any money. We are strictly
volunteer except for the part-time staff person.

Mary Jo Cady: So someone has been assigned to go to your meetings?

Mr. Ross: Because we are a public body, we are required to have 24-hour
notice of public meetings, so a staff person must see that it is publicized.
If it is not, the meeting has to be canceled. I'm not being critical of
staff; I just want you to understand there is an awful lot to it to do it
right. I suggest you get a copy of the RCWs and look at what the rules and
regulations are. Even though the meetings are publicized, we've only had one
person ever show up at a meeting.  (Washington State Noxious Weed Laws can be found at http://www.wa.gov/agr/weedboard/weed_laws/index.html]

Wes Johnson: You indicated there is a lot of material out there. Does your
weed board identify or distribute any of that material to the people or
various groups?

Mr. Ross: Yes, we try to. That's one of the main things the weed board does.
We try to get to public functions put on by the master gardeners or the
county fair or community associations where there will be an assembly of
people who own property and are probably interested in weeds. Many people
are concerned about weeds, but no one can do anything except the people who own the property.

Herb Baze: Do you feel like your role is mostly educational?

Mr. Ross: I think that's about the only thing we can do unless we get into a
police operation. We advertise the meetings and one time an individual came
to the meeting, concerned about scotch broom. I was at his place the next
morning with my tractor and pulled up the scotch broom at no charge. Scotch
broom is not considered a noxious weed because the state feels there is
nothing that can be done about it since it is so pervasive. I don't agree
with that. I control it on my property. The same with blackberries.

Commissioners: Thank you for your time.

Next, SANDI DUNLAP spoke about cooperative relationships and informational meetings with the public if a weed board is activated. "We don't want a police action," she said.

LOUIS CAFONI said he was proud to live in Mason County, but "I want to
cringe every time I hear 'weed control board.'" He asked why someone in the
public works department couldn't be educated to deal with weeds. And would
neighbor rat against neighbor?

COMMISSIONER CADY replied that, because of legal funding restrictions,
Public Works can only deal with vegetation on the right-of-way of county
roads.

MARY SWOBODA said she spoke to Margaret Viebrock at the Douglas County Extension Office. Their county commissioners have refused to have a weed control board. Instead, they believe there are other avenues, such as the
cooperative extension agent, who can educate the public on noxious weeds.
Ms. Viebrock suggested Mason County commissioners contact Douglas County Commissioner Mary Hunt.  (The Washington State University cooperative extension has an extensive web site containing information on weeds at http://www.ncw.wsu.edu/Weeds.htm)  Ms. Swoboda believes smaller landowners would disproportionately fund any tax burden, based on Mason County Assessor data that shows small property owners own only 17% of the land in Mason County. Timberland accounts for 64%, while the other 18% is owned by government entities that do not pay property tax.

Last to speak was SHIRLEY WILLEIKSEN, who said dry land weeds are more an educational process, but water weeds such as milfoil are more touchy because eliminating them means using chemicals that require a federal license.
Establishing a weed board would allow availability to grants to help
property owners deal with weeds such as milfoil and apply controlled
herbicides.

Hearing ended.