Photo: Musk thistle, southwest Montana. © 2020 Delena Norris-Tull
Timeline of important historical developments in the management of invasive plants/noxious weeds
Summaries and commentary by Dr. Delena Norris-Tull, Professor Emerita of Science Education, University of Montana Western,
September 2020.
The following timeline is extrapolated from various interviews with USA County, State, and Federal agency representatives that have been engaged with weed and pest management in Western States. Many of these individuals have worked in the weed and pest management field for thirty or more years, and thus provide important reflections on changes within the field over time.
Within this website, refer to the section State Laws for more details on the various laws listed below.
1870s-1890s
California passed its first noxious weed law, focused on control of Scotch and Canada thistles, in 1872. In 1883, the State authorized the formation of County weed control boards. In 1881, Washington passed its first noxious weed law, to control Canada thistle. These two large coastal States, with very large investments in agriculture, were already experiencing the economic impact of invasive species.
In my 2017 interview with Slade Franklin, Weed and Pest Coordinator, Wyoming Department of Agriculture, he provided quite a bit of historical context. Slade told me: “In 1895, Dr. Lyster H. Dewey, of the USDA Division of Botany, conducted research on Russian thistle in North Dakota and Nebraska. As a result of his research, he advocated for Federal laws on weed management, but was ignored.
“The first Wyoming weed law was the Russian Thistle and Canada Thistle Act of 1895. Aven Nelson, from the University of Wyoming, started the first herbarium in Wyoming. In 1896, he published the first weed bulletin, which was critical of the new weed legislation and included recommendations for better legislation, based in part on Dr. Dewey’s recommendations. This started the process that led to the development of the Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act in 1930.”
1910-1920s
1930s
Slade Franklin reported: “In 1937, Wyoming held its first Wyoming Pest Control Conference. This evolved into the Wyoming Weed and Pest Council about 1953. In 1938, the first annual Western Weed Control Conference was held. In 1944, one of the first western meetings of the Weed Science Society of America was held.”
The first Federal Seed Law was enacted in 1939. Laks Baker said that the early seed laws designated that any seed sold had to be at least 97% pure (weed free). Lars Baker, Weed and Pest Supervisor for Fremont County, Wyoming, pointed out in his interview with Becky McMillen, that, “Unfortunately, because it’s quite easy to have seed that is 99% pure, the seed companies started putting trash into the seed, to decrease it to 97% pure. This allowed many weed species to be introduced.”
1940s
1942 Western Weed Control Conference
[Link to the Minutes]
Within the 1942 Minutes of the Western Weed Control Conference, the impact of World War II on weed problems is discussed several times:
Report by Walter S. Ball, Chief of the California Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Rodent and Weed Control and Seed Inspection: “The war has brought about conditions that have made weed control… more important than in the past…The Chairman of the War Board met with our county agricultural group last December and stated that he felt that weed control should be continued as it definitely has a place in the program of food for victory…The results have been that our County Agricultural Commissioners, who are responsible for most of the work in the State, along with our Experiment Station, have continued putting in full effort on the weed control program. One of the problems we had was due to the evacuation of the Japanese, which naturally turned over large acreages of land to individual who were not wholly familiar with farming… The results are that there are now individuals in the farming game on these thousands of acres of Japanese areas who do not understand weed control, and who are buying seeds as cheaply as possible… which, as you know, presents a problem [Note: he is referring to the purchase of seed that is contaminated with weed seed]. These people need help. We are trying to be of service, and, also, to handle the regulatory phases… In some cases we have had very good cooperation. In other places, we still have a problem…
“Another point I wish to mention is that of ammonium sulfamate, the promotion of which is built up by commercial salesmen. We have checked the work and found this material is effective under certain conditions, and, no doubt, has a place in our weed control program, but at the present time it is not working as set forth by the salesmen, for we are unable to attain the results they claim can be attained. On Johnson grass it was effective; in fact, this was one of the best controls I have seen for Johnson grass. We had to use as much as 4 pounds per square rod, however, which is twice the recommended dosage. At around 24 cents per pound, the price is high. It is definitely in competition with carbon bisulphide in the control of deep-rooted perennials.
“Much money is being expended on Klamath Weed control. We now find that we can continue our work through the summer months. Borax may be applied through the summer months in the dry form at 8 to 10 pounds per square rod and, apparently, does not lose its effectiveness, and thus gives us early fall results. Under our conditions, we usually have light rains in October and November. The plant starts its growth early in the fall and with these light rains the roots pick up the material quite readily, thus giving very good kills. Formerly we confined our Borax work to a definite period of three or four months during our rainy season, depending on the rain to carry it into the soil. We have gained a great deal and covered thousands of acres through summer applications on our range program.
“An AAA program has given us a great deal of help… They ordered some 800 tons of Borax to be used by the landowners, applied in most cases under the supervision of the County Agricultural Commissioner. The farmer received 3 cents per pound of Borax applied.”
[Note: The Agricultural Adjustment Agency was a Federal Agency formed by the Agricultural Adjustment Act during the Great Depression, as part of Roosevelt’s New Deal. The AAA was tasked with increasing agricultural prices by making contracts with farmers to reduce surplus by paying for them to take acreage out of production. The agency also purchased livestock for slaughter. Apparently, significant funds from the AAA were used to promote accepted practices for weed control, and to purchase chemicals for that purpose.]
During the war years, a number of chemicals that had begun to be used previously were not readily available. Some were being used in bomb making. Hand labor and cultivation and plowing of the soil were the primary means of weed control, especially during those years. Crop rotation was sometimes used. Flooding was used in some areas, where water was available. Burning with oil was also widely used. Drying was sometimes used, to reduce weeds in irrigation canals. In 1942, Kansas reported the use of salt on highways and other non-agricultural lands.
Sinox was a new chemical, mentioned in the 1942 minutes. In one report, it is recommended that it be mixed with ammonium sulfate, to lower the cost of the application.
One of the most toxic chemicals used in the 1940s was sodium arsenite. In the 1942 conference minutes, the following report was included, “Perhaps the best treatment on grasses is the use of sodium arsenite as the spray, particularly on such weeds as false dandelion or cat’s ear, used when the grass is dormant. In many trials this treatment has eliminated 95% of the weeds. 12 to 15 pounds of dry sodium arsenite in 100 gallons of water per acre, on the average, has been the best dosage. The field should not be used for grazing immediately after spraying however, because of the poisonous properties of the spray.”
One technique that was tried was seed devitalization [At that time, seed devitalization used either heat or manual grinding with a hammer mill, to destroy the ability of the weed seed to geminate. With heat, the trick is to heat the seeds enough to prevent weed seeds from germinating, but not so hot as to prevent crop seeds from germinating. Today, seed devitalization is also used to prevent crop seeds from geminating before intended, or, as in the case of popcorn or cereal grains, to never germinate. One modern technique is the process of hydrating and then freezing crop seed, in order to prevent germination but preserve the seed DNA and protein].
At the 1942 conference, Mr. Earl Hutchings from Utah reported on this method:
“I think we should take the lead in finding an economical method of devitalization of noxious weed seeds. Possibly on a community basis, and by a method by which the producer can receive a fair salvage value, inducing better cooperation in this important problem. It might be accomplished by steam or dry heat on a large scale and induce the policy of cleaning grain at harvest time so that the movement of such a commodity in commercial avenues would not be such a temptation to farmers to purchase and plant. Our present method of devitalization is by the hammer mill process which is proved none too satisfactory.”
In some cases, livestock were used as part of the weed control program, a practice which remains in use in various States in 2020. An interesting test on weed seed viability, after consumption by liestock, is reported in the 1942 minutes:
“Mr. Jenkins also reported on a test carried out to determine the level of weed seed viability, after being consumed by sheep. The test on seven weed species found a percentage of seed viability after passing through the sheep, with percentages ranging from 0.4% to 72%. Four species had seed viability above 20%. In some cases, seed remained viable even when it did not pass out of the sheep for ten days.”
Refer to the 1942 minutes for details of the success and failures of several methods and chemicals that were used, prior to the advent of herbicides (2,4-D, the first hormone herbicide, was invented during the war, and was just beginning to become available for farmers and ranchers to use to kill weeds, after the war).
Mr. Ball also said, “In closing I should like to mention seed. I think the sooner we get into the seed end of this weed program, the planting of clean seed and the harvesting of clean seed or seed from clean fields, the sooner we are going to handle one of our most important problems.” The minutes point out that weed-free seed laws were not yet implemented in all states, by 1942.
Wyoming’s weed-free seed law was passed in 1941. According to George Hittle, in his 2013 interview with Becky McMillen, “Wyoming and Montana developed the first two certified weed-free forage programs in the US. Montana had its own small program started about the same time as Wyoming’s. Montana’s program started out in Dillon. Then other Western States became interested, and it went regional. It’s pretty well nationwide now.”
Review the 1942 minutes for an interesting report from the US Bureau of Reclamation on their successes and failures in weed control, and for reference to the newly recognized problem of weeds in the irrigation ditches (many “weeds” mentioned in 1942 are native species). Included in that report is the following information: “In a recent survey of crop seeds in Colorado, made by Bruce J. Thornton, some surprising facts were disclosed. The average quality of crop seed sampled showed that 84.95% contained noxious weed seeds. The average number of noxious weed seeds per pound was 233, which would be 2.7 weeds per square yard. The poorest quality of seeds sampled averaged 2,084 noxious and 17,760 common weed seeds per acre, or 206 weed seeds per square yard.”
Throughout the 1942 minutes, weed “eradication,” as the goal, is mentioned repeatedly. It is not until many years later that individuals working in the field of weed control begin to understand that eradication is not realistic, and that keeping weeds managed is the best they can hope for. But even today, State laws related to the control of noxious weeds commonly still refer to “eradication” as the goal.
In the 1942 minutes, in a report on research of the effectiveness of using various oil sprays on weeds, among the results was the following: “Russian knapweed was not greatly reduced by four sprayings. In one case where the infestation originally consisted of about 10% knapweed and 90% hoary cress, the knapweed has now taken the plot, having increased while the hoary cress was killed out.”
Delena’s reflections on the 1942 conference minutes: It is interesting that, at the 1942 Western Weed conference, there is no mention in any reports of the use of native species to combat noxious weeds. But at this time, much of the emphasis was still on cropland. When the use of “competitive crops” is described, non-native species such as alfalfa and Sudan grass are considered, rather than native species. Even when grasses are listed as good competitive crops, no mention is made of native grasses. Of course, at this time in US history, there was little native seed available anywhere. Chemical herbicides, other than those few mentioned in the reports, had not yet been invented. Biocontrols also had not yet been introduced. Reference to biocontrol insects first show up in the 1945 and 1946 minutes.
1945 Western Weed Control Conference
[Link to the Minutes]
In November, 1945, in a report given by one of the committees of the Western Weed Control Conference to the USDA Plant Industry Committee, Memphis, Tennessee, the committee explained that, “Several states have passed laws and have set up fairly good constructive weed programs. However, the majority of the states have inadequate weed control programs or no program at all. Too often, however, action is taken by a state legislature setting up provision for inspection and control without appropriating ample funds to carry out the enforcement for these purposes.
“Most of the state weed control programs now in operation follow along the same general lines as the program in the State of Washington. The Washington law makes it possible for 50% of the landowners in any area by mutual agreement to form a weed control district or a weed extermination area... It also makes possible the formation of an area of any size from one section to a whole county… The law provides for the inclusion of public rights-of-way, for Federal, State and County lands. These inclusions are necessary in any weed control program because of watersheds or other means of re-infesting land where weeds have once been eradicated.
“There are several weaknesses in the Washington law which is true of the weed laws of other states. It does not provide for definite coordination with the existing seed law, nor does it provide for control of the movement of livestock from weed infested areas through weed control areas. It also fails to provide for prevention of the movement of vehicles along public highways carrying weed infested materials. Also there are no regulations regarding the sale or movement of weed infested grains.
“In many areas the cost of eradication of weeds on the more marginal types of land would be greater than the value of the property on which the weed eradication program might be carried out. It, therefore, would seem that the eradication of weeds must of necessity be a long range program.
“It is apparent that noxious weeds cause greater loss to the farmers than all livestock diseases, plant diseases, and insect pests put together. While all farmers realize the menace of noxious weeds, many seem to have an apathetic attitude toward the problem of weed control. We believe the reason for this is weed infestation has developed slowly over a period of many years, and many farmers seem to believe nothing can be done about it, and that weeds are just something they have to put up with. This undoubtedly is a reason why there has been no greater demand on the part of the farmers for an aggressive Federal-State weed control program in past years…
“A weed control program must of necessity be a long-time program… When established in any state, section or nationally, it should be set up to extend over a long period of time, not just one or two years and then neglected. If neglected after such a short period, the money spent on the initial investment is entirely wasted…
“It is unanimously agreed among those who have made a study of noxious weeds that there is a critical need for a strong, aggressively administered, and fully financed National Weed Control Program.
“It is further agreed that the United States Department of Agriculture should create within the Bureau of Plant Industry, a Weed Division to deal with the various phases of the nation’s weed problems and extend its research, investigations and experiments with noxious weeds on a national scale to assist in developing the most efficient and economical methods of control and eradication.”
From the 1945 Minutes of the Western Weed Control Conference, the formation of the first North Central Conference, including 13 states, is announced. Members of the Western Weed Control Conference assisted the North Central group in getting formed. Mr. Walter S. Ball, Chief of the California Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Rodent and Weed Control and Seed Inspection, was one of the individuals who assisted in the formation of the North Central Group. He attended the first North Central Weed Control Conference. He reported the following, from the North Central Conference, to the attendees of the 1945 Western Weed Control Conference.
In opening comments by Mr. C.H. Schrader, Department of Agriculture for Minnesota, he pointed out that, “If the weed losses in the United States estimated by the US Chamber of Commerce were $3 billion in 1930, we can easily suspect that they are now near $5 billion, or an average of more than $100 million per state…”
Mr. Ball described a speech by the representative of the US Department of Agriculture, Dr. M.A. McCall [from the USDA Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils, & Agricultural Engineering], in which he pointed out that while this conference focused on control of bindweed, at least 30 plants can now be considered noxious weeds. Dr. McCall mentioned Johnson grass, Russian knapweed, white top, and poverty weed, and stated that, “More than 2,000,000 acres of good agricultural land [are] virtually out of production because of noxious weeds... The Bureau of Reclamation spends more than $100,000 a year dragging weeds out of irrigation canals and drainage ditches...” He also mentioned that there are about 39 species of shrubs and trees now infesting some 10,000 acres of good pasture or rangeland.
Dr. McCall described a report by Mr. F.L. Timmons, the Chairman of the Research Committee, who listed the following areas needed for immediate research: “the development of a cropping system and rotation for the control of annual weeds; development of inexpensive methods of weed control on low valued lands; development of methods for the control of erosion during the eradication of perennials; the improvement of tillage machinery; the continuous testing of herbicides to determine their relative effectiveness…; the improvement of machinery for the application of dry material;… research on the occurrence of weed seeds in crop seeds and in feed grains;… the improvement of machinery for cleaning crop seeds.”
Mr. Ball also included the following report from the North Central Conference from Mr. L.W. Kephart: “One of the brighter aspects in the post-war weed picture is the probability that new chemical weed killers will be available of a variety and potency which we have not heretofore known… Weed eradication, as a science, has always lagged far behind other kinds of pest control in the development of technical aids, and our knowledge of the nature and utilization of herbicides is crude indeed by comparison with the highly intricate knowledge of insecticides, fungicides, germicides, and the like... [In the past 50 years] scarcely a dozen men have had the opportunity to give their full time and thought to the possibilities of chemicals in the control of weeds. As a result, the science of chemical weed control is still elementary and farmers have had available for their use, at least until very recently, only such unimaginative materials as arsenic, chlorate, sulfuric acid, and petroleum oil.”
Mr. Ball reported that, “Some of the materials Mr. Kephart mentioned which will be in the field for further research are the sulfur compounds, the acetic acids, the aldehydes, organic peroxides, formates, oximes, chlorinated hydrocarbons, chlorinated phenols, and the dinitro compounds.”
Mr. Ball summarized a report by Mr. A.K. Hepperly, Agricultural Agent of the C.B. & Q. Railroad, who found that the railroads’ use of chlorate to eradicate weeds are “so erratic that it requires so much labor for the original application and the follow-up treatments, and that the seedling problem, together with the fire hazard of sodium chlorate, makes it fall far short of a solution to the railroads’ problem of weed eradication… Considerable Borax has been used on the railroad with good results… inspection during the summer of 1943 showed good kill at most locations, some of which were 100%. Inspection in 1944, however, showed that Borax can be as erratic as sodium chlorate.”
Mr. Ball also learned that, “it appeared that all the [North Central] states had some type of laws and regulations but there were very few states that had the manpower and the facilities for the enforcement of such laws.”
The 1945 Conferences seem to be the first time that 2,4-D is mentioned. 2.4-D was not made available for public use until after the war. Mr. C.T. Seeley, from the Agronomy Division of the University of Idaho gave a report on the new developments with the use of hormones in weed control. He described the use of 2,4-D: “It wasn’t until 1941 that Nevada thought you might be able to use it for weed control, and it wasn’t until 1944 that any actual work was done,… as far as weed killers was concerned. 2,4-D was picked primarily because it happened to be one that was easily manufactured and was available in large quantities...”
1945 also appears to be the first time major concerns about waterweeds, especially in irrigation ditches, are discussed.
At the 1945 Conference, Dr. McCall stated that few federal resources are presently available to tackle the weed problem. He expressed willingness to ask the US Forest Service and other Federal Departments to increase financial support for weed removal on federally controlled lands.
It has been apparent from these minutes and conversations with various State Agency representatives that the Federal Government has lagged way behind the States in tackling the weed problems.
At the 1945 Conference, Mr. Thomas H. Van Meter, from the US Forest Service, stationed in Idaho, gave a report on “Noxious Weed Control on National Forests.” The report is summarized:
“For many years the forest service has been combating plants poisonous to livestock and has included this control in the range management program. During the last 10 years, an invasion of noxious plants not native to our forest lands has been noted; and in some cases, spreading at an alarming rate. This invasion has been on past depleted areas that have not regained their normal vegetative balance, and control measures have been inaugurated on many areas. We believe that proper stocking and range management will generally take care of any infestation over a period of years.
“Undesirable or noxious weeds on National Forests fall into slightly different classes than those on cultivated areas. These weeds,… are classified as:
1. plants poisonous to live stock;
2. invasion plants;
3. plants noxious to adjacent cultivated lands.”
It is interesting to note that most of the plants listed in that report, as causing problems in the National Forests, are native species.
Mr. Van Meter also said, “To date the Forest Service has financed their program from the limited range improvement funds allotted, as no direct appropriations have been made for this type of work.”
The 1945 Western Weed Control Conference is also the first time that biocontrol insects are mentioned. Mr. Ball reported on research being conducted in cooperation with the US Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine on two biological control insects. These insects have been effective in use in Australia. He stated, “These insects have been brought into California, after thoroughly investigating the possibilities of their detriment to other plants or crops. A complete series of starvation tests have been carried out to prove that they would not be destructive to other plants. They attack nothing but Hypericum (goatweed). We do not know anything as yet about the natural predators, which may prey upon these insects. If they are present, our hopes for control will be very limited. We are not hoping to use these insects on those areas, at least at the present time, where we can carry on our regular program with Borax and cultivation.”
1946 Western Weed Control Conference
[Link to the Minutes]
The 1946 minutes of the Western Weed Control Conference indicate increased cooperation from several Federal Agencies, although funding remains too low.
The 1946 minutes show the rapid increase in the use of 2,4-D. Many organizations are looking to 2,4-D and other as-yet-to-be developed chemicals to be the solution to the weed problem. But several statements within the minutes raise some concerns about the use of 2,4-D.
In the Wyoming report to the conference, the following statement is included: “Although the State Department has not recommended 2,4-D, because of the need for further experimental information, many individuals purchased it for personal use…”
In the Colorado report to the conference, it is stated that, “Considerable 2,4-D was used in the State last year by individuals. Although the results were frequently disappointing, especially as compared to the advance claims made for herbicides of this type, indications are that they were sufficiently satisfactory to encourage a much wider use of the materials this coming season.”
In most Western States in 1946, a number of other chemicals remained in use, or had been recently introduced. Sinox, Carbon bisulfide were still in use. Altacide, Borax/Borascu, and ammate appeared to be new to the scene.
In the 1946 conference, a committee of the Western Weed Control Conference reported that they had attended a 1945 meeting of the USDA Plant Industry Committee, telling the Federal Agency, “Several states have passed laws and have set up fairly good constructive weed programs. However, the majority of the states have inadequate weed control programs or no program at all. Too often, however, action is taken by a state legislature setting up provision for inspection and control without appropriating ample funds to carryout the enforcement for these purposes…
“In many areas the cost of eradication of weeds on the more marginal types of land would be greater than the value of the property on which the weed eradication program might be carried out. It, therefore, would seem that the eradication of weeds must of necessity be a long range program.
“It is apparent that noxious weeds cause greater loss to the farmers than all livestock diseases, plant diseases, and insect pests put together. While all farmers realize the menace of noxious weeds, many seem to have an apathetic attitude toward the problem of weed control. We believe the reason for this is weed infestation has developed slowly over a period of many years, and many farmers seem to believe nothing can be done about it, and that weeds are just something they have to put up with. This undoubtedly is a reason why there has been no greater demand on the part of the farmers for an aggressive Federal-State weed control program in past years…
“A weed control program must of necessity be a long-time program… When established in any state, section or nationally, it should be set up to extend over a long period of time, not just one or two years and then neglected. If neglected after such a short period, the money spent on the initial investment is entirely wasted…
“It is unanimously agreed among those who have made a study of noxious weeds that there is a critical need for a strong, aggressively administered, and fully financed National Weed Control Program.
“It is further agreed that the United States Department of Agriculture should create within the Bureau of Plant Industry, a Weed Division to deal with the various phases of the nation’s weed problems and extend its research, investigations and experiments with noxious weeds on a national scale to assist in developing the most efficient and economical methods of control and eradication.”
The committee provided fairly detailed recommendations to the USDA, in regards to the need for well-coordinated and funded efforts in the following four areas: research, education, the identification of effective control practices, and Federal regulations.
In the 1946 minutes, more and more Western States are recognizing that non-croplands are going to require more attention in the future. Rangeland, right-of-ways, fence lines, irrigation canals, and ditches will need constant attention. On rangelands, native plant species remain on the list of noxious weeds in a number of States, due to fairly significant livestock losses, due to plant toxicity, which occurs in areas where rangelands have little alternative available plants for livestock.
At the 1946 Western Weed Control Conference, a report given by T.F. Yost stated, “The North Central States held the second annual Weed Conference in St. Paul. The two-day conference was attended by nearly 100 delegates, and all [13] states in the region were represented. Nearly 100 commercial representatives attended as well. Four standing work committees met on the first afternoon: 1. Research; 2. Uniform State Weed and Seed Laws; 3. Federal Extension Weed Specialist; and 4: Federal Legislation to Control Interstate Movement of Noxious Weed Infested Seed, Feed and other Material; and Movement and Sale of Weed Infested Materials by Federal Agencies…
“Several states in the North Central area have excellent weed laws which are supporting a good program and which are producing worthwhile results. Several other states have excellent laws on the statute books but are not supporting an active program. Other states have antiquated weed laws which need to be modernized and brought up to date and put on an active basis…
“Before closing, I desire to pay special tribute to the excellent research work done by the US Bureau of Plant Industry, to the AAA program for making payments for noxious weed control and to the other Federal agencies who have properly assumed their weed responsibilities.
“At the present time, the Federal Government is doing two important things bearing on the weed problem, which are research dealing with eradication or control, and administration of the federal Seed Act. Both of these activities are being conducted in an excellent manner…
“In the weed control program the National Congress has curiously adopted what seems to be a hands-off policy. Maybe it would be better to say that the Congress seems not to be interested in the national weed control problem. Some of the states, in order to protect themselves against the weed menace, have been forced to initiate and support their own eradication and control program, while the Federal Government has set idly by and has not even done a good job of looking on. The weed problem is so broad in scope, so devastating in effect, and so complicated when considered from the overall standpoint, that we believe the time is here when Congress should sit up and take notice that there is a weed condition in our country that is of national importance, which if not properly handled will undermine the greatest resource of our nation, which is the soil. There are some aspects of the weed problem that cannot be handled on the state level. These problems cut across state lines and can only be handled by Federal action.”
In another report from the North Central Conference, it was stated that, “The course of events to come was accurately prophesied at the meeting in Omaha by Mr. L.W. Kephart of the USDA in his discussion of ‘Chemical Weed Killers After the War.’ After reporting briefly on preliminary results with 2,4-D in 1944, he advanced the opinion that revolutionary developments in chemical weed control would soon present weed research workers and control officials with the problems that they were hardly prepared to handle. He predicted widespread publicity and sensational claims for the new weed killers and pointed out the need for a disinterested agency to assemble information, correlate the facts and act as an umpire in the situation. He suggested that our research committee was the logical group to do this in the north central area.
“By the end of January, 1945, much of Mr. Kephart’s prophecy had materialized. Several sensational articles and advertisements about 2,4-D had appeared in print, and the barometer of public interest was rising rapidly as indicated by the sudden flood of inquiries received by nearly every weed control and research worker in the country. It was immediately evident that our meager facilities and personnel for weed research would not be able to gain information rapidly enough to protect the public interest except through organized effort.”
At the end of the 1946 Western Weed Control Conference, a report was given by Mr. H.R. Offord, from the US Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, entitled, “Control of Host Plants in a Plant Disease Program with Special Reference to Ribes and White Pine Blister Rust Disease.” This disease is caused by an Asian fungus, and remains a threat today to North American species of white pines, especially in high elevations. The report described Federal eradication programs underway, to kill various plants that carry viruses and rusts that damage crops. The plants being eradicated, and their diseases were:
A wide array of mechanical and chemical methods were being used to eradicate Ribes populations. It is notable and concerning that barberry and Ribes species, which are native species, were targeted for “eradication.” Today, we know that several other native plant species also transmit the rust. Today the control of White Pine Blister Rust has focused on trimming infected tree branches and the development of pines that are resistant to the fungus. It is interesting to note that, historically, concern for the loss of pine trees has to do with their importance in the lumber industry. It was considered acceptable to destroy other native plants because they were not considered economically important.
1950s
1960s
In my 2017 interview with John Samson, Agronomist for the Wyoming Department of Transportation, he said: “In the 1960s, certain agricultural chemicals were used on the land a lot, on annual row crops”
[Note: Refer to the section of this website on Herbicides: History and Impacts for some of the history of use of chemicals in the US].
1970s
In my 2017 interview with Slade Franklin, he said, “Since 1973, [Wyoming] has been divided into 23 Weed and Pest Control Districts. While the boundaries of these Districts are based on County lines, their funding does not come out of the normal County budget. They are funded by mill levies (up to two mill levies). The Wyoming Department of Transportation allocates funding to the Wyoming Department of Agriculture, which in turn allocates funds to the districts. The Weed and Pest Control Districts manage weeds along state and interstate highways within their county.”
In a 2013 interview with Becky McMillen, George Hittle, the first Wyoming Weed and Pest Coordinator, said “The Federal Plant Protection Quarantine Act deals with management of undesirable plants on Federal land. After it went through Congress, it was attached to the Federal Noxious Weed Control Act of 1974.”
George Hittle explained that the Carlson-Foley Act of 1977, “was supposed to provide a mechanism for the Federal land management agencies to pay into States for management of noxious weeds on Federal lands.” But it was not until 1990, that this Act was amended to ensure collaboration between Federal agencies and the States.
1980s
John Samson explained, “I worked for the US Soil Conservation Service (SCS; now the NRCS) in Nebraska from 1983-1994. We worked mostly with private land owners. Today, the NRCS is mainly regulatory. They no longer do much boots-on-the-ground work with land owners. There is more emphasis on office electronic planning….
“In 1986, the USDA implemented the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). This program has survived to this day, under the NRCS assistance. Through joint funding with the federal Food Security Act, the CRP provides subsidies to land owners to put their properties into mandatory conservation reserve. Today, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is the name of the agency that manages this program along side NRCS. Many land owners allowed their farms to go fallow (‘leaving the land alone’), sometimes for 20 years under contract rentals. Under the CRP, many more farmers in the Great Plains states signed up for the subsidies than did farmers in the eastern states. The criteria for the subsidies was that you had to have ‘highly erodible cropland’ due to wind or water erosion.”
According to the 2018 USDA agency website, the CRP is a “land conservation program administered by the Farm Service Agency. In exchange for a yearly rental payment, farmers enrolled in the program agree to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and plant species that will improve environmental health and quality. Contracts for land enrolled in CRP are 10-15 years in length. The long-term goal of the program is to re-establish valuable land cover to help improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife habitat. Signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, CRP is the largest private-lands conservation program in the United States. Thanks to voluntary participation by farmers and land owners, CRP has improved water quality, reduced soil erosion, and increased habitat for endangered and threatened species.”
Also, according to the CRP website, “Highly erodible lands are fragile and vulnerable to erosion. For farmers and landowners with cropland exceeding an Erosion Index >20, establishing grass or tree cover will help maintain the long-term health of the land. In addition, this type of cover will provide habitat for numerous mammal and bird species and serve as a resource for shelter, nesting, and food. Enrolling these lands also makes economic sense, as they often fall short as productive crop growing areas.”
John Samson said, “Under the CRP, land owners tended to re-seed the cropland with introduced grasses, such as tall fescue and smooth brome [Note: these introduced grasses are now considered to be invasive species in some areas of the US]. Native grass seed was not readily available in the early years, so it was not used much….
“When I was working for the SCS in Nebraska, we pushed to promote re-seeding with cool and warm season native grasses. We tried to grow native grass seed for land owners to use. This extended the limited commercial native seed supplies available in the mid-1980s.”
In addition, there are other Federal programs that provide support to farmers and ranchers to promote habitat restoration, such as various programs managed through the NRCS, including the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, the Healthy Forests Reserve Program, and the Sage Grouse Initiative. Most of these federal initiatives are funded through the Farm Bill.
1990s
In 1996, Sheley, Svejcar, and Maxwell, published an article to propose, “A theoretical framework for developing successional weed management strategies on rangeland.” Within this website, refer to the section Native Plants, for details of their framework.
The Management of Undesirable Plant Species on Federal Lands Act, 1990, brought the Federal land management agencies into working with the States. Refer to the Interview with George Hittle for details on the extensive process of getting this amendment approved by Congress.
John Samson told me: “In 1994, I came to Wyoming. I took advantage of the USDA buy-out of employees. To reduce costs during major budget cuts, during the 50th anniversary of the agency, the USDA got rid of a lot of staff, moving into a more computerized agency. As a result, the agency lost a lot of knowledge from individuals who had worked there many years, such as knowledge about the causes and impacts of the 1930s Dust Bowl years and the 1950s droughts in the Plains States. President Clinton worked with the US Congress to balance the federal budget in the 1990s. They succeeded in balancing the budget, but made a lot of budget cuts to many federal agencies in the process.”
2000s
In my 2017 interview with Phil Westra, Weed Scientist from Colorado State University, he told me, “During my career, I’ve seen a massive shift in crop tilling practices. While in the past, farmers would till the soil deeply after the harvest, now there is minimal till or reduced till, due to the need to reduce the use of herbicides. Weed management is being threatened by the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds…. 85-90% of crop land is now managed with reduced till.”
In my 2017 interview with Dr. George Beck, Weed Scientist from Colorado State University, he explained, “The term ‘Noxious’ has its founding in agriculture. ‘Rangeland’ is dealt with differently than ‘agricultural lands.’ Rangeland is expected to have minimal inputs. In other words, there is little money available for improving rangeland. There are little funds for managing weeds on rangeland.”
George Beck said, “Invasive species are the biggest problem in the western US. In Colorado now there is tremendous importance being placed on re-planting with native species. Almost all re-seeding now is with natives. Except where the soil is so bad, in which case we might plant a non-native brome grass for grazing.”
In my 2018 visit to the NRCS Laramie County Field Office, Cheyenne Wyoming, I interviewed Jim Cochran, District Manager, and Jim Pike, District Conservationist. Jim Pike told me, “The Farm Bill includes statements about the importance of controlling weeds, but it’s the landowners’ responsibility to do it, so often it just doesn’t happen.
“Depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer [the main source of water for a massive area of the West, from Nebraska to West Texas] is a major problem here that keeps us busy. Before the Farm Bill was re-authorized in 2014, there was a program, AWEP [Agricultural Water Enhancement Program], that provided some funds for surface and ground water conservation. We were able to use those funds on a project to pay people to give up their water rights to conserve the aquifer. We were able to reduce the annual water consumption in Laramie County by 1,000,000,000 gallons. But the AWEP program is now gone.” [The AWEP Program was suspended, under the 2014 reauthorization of the Farm Bill.]
Jim Pike said, “If you scored all the agencies responsible to manage weeds, Federal, State and County, we would probably all get Cs…. NRCS is not authorized to make management recommendations. The County Weed and Pest agency is supposed to educate the landowners on management practices.”
John Samson is the Agronomist for the Environmental Services Department, Wyoming Department of Transportation (DOT). John has worked in the field of native plant reclamation for 35 years. In my 2017 interview, he provided me with the following insights: “Compared to the southern DOT states, Wyoming is not big on chemical [herbicide] management of weeds. In Wyoming, we use a lot of native species along roadways. Part of the Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) approach uses native species dynamics [i.e., allelopathic natural compounds].
“I recently attended the annual meeting of representatives from the state Departments of Transportation, the National Roadside Vegetation Management Association meeting, held in Springfield, Missouri. The southeastern states have a different approach than we have in the west. In the southeast, they have a lot more rainfall than we do. They mow roadways three-four times a year, and they plant Bermuda grass, and bahiagrass. In Wyoming, we can only afford to mow once a year, with an emphasis on roadside shoulders in rural segments. We mow in late August or September, at the end of the growing season. This is primarily due to the cost, but secondarily, we want the native plants to go to seed so they can be mulched and spread by the mowers’ pass.”
[Note from Delena: Bermuda grass and bahiagrass are now considered “invasive species” by a number of agencies in various Southern States. For example, the Nature Conservancy has produced a brochure on management of bahiagrass as an invasive. The State of Florida has a number of native plant restoration projects underway that are battling bahaigrass. The Native Prairies Association of Texas now treats bahiagrass as an invasive. However, it is still touted as an important perennial grass for grazing livestock in some states in the Southeastern US. For example, refer to the University of Georgia’s Cooperative Extension website on Bahiagrass, http://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=B1362. In addition, the NRCS still promotes its use, while warning of its potential to become invasive.]
John Samson continued: “The Louisiana Department of Transportation uses private contractors to mow. Since they are paid by the acre, there is economic pressure to do repeat mowings. Keep in mind that Louisiana has invasive tall brush that gets easily out of control in one year, which is not true in arid Wyoming.”
John stated, “In the past 15 years, federal agencies are promoting native grass seed much more. For example, in Iowa, along roadsides, there used to be mainly introduced tall fescue and smooth brome. Now there are a lot of native tall grass species in roadways, thanks to the Iowa DOT and the University of Northern Iowa Roadside Program.
“Wyoming is largely a high desert. It is very difficult to dryland farm here without irrigation. I use all native species in the plantings in the Wyoming roadways. We divide the state up into five Ecoregions, and use the dominant natives from that region: the Black Hills, the Northern Great Plains, the Rocky Mountains east and foothills, the Rocky Mountains west and foothills, and the Wyoming Basin [also called the Red Desert, a very high desert split by the Continental Divide].
“We’re using indigenous grasses, forbs, and shrubs. We are careful about where we plant large forbs and shrubs, so that they are not planted too close to roadways. We have to be careful about animals hiding in rubber rabbitbrush and big sagebrush, for example. I examine WYDOT road safety data for animal hotspots, to reduce the incidents of automobile collisions caused by game animals.
“Native seed planting occurs through both the Wyoming DOT and the BLM [US Bureau of Land Management]. I am in charge of all the planting plans done through the Wyoming DOT.
“Today, we buy gravel, rock, etc., for the right-of-ways from private land owners. Some of the contracts we have with land owners are decades old. Sometimes I have to compromise, and use some introduced species, to please these land owners. The Wyoming Reclamation Policy, through the BLM State Office, already requires the use of ‘self-perpetuating native plant community’ on BLM pits, plant sites, and quarries used on WYDOT projects.
“Native American tribal members have an arrangement with the Wyoming DOT. They harvest culturally significant forbs and grasses in the Wyoming roadways in the summer or early fall, before we mow the roadways.
“The Wyoming coal mines still operating are planting native species in their reclamation projects under the WYDEQ-LQ Division.
“Kochia tumbleweeds are so large that they can present a high wind hazard to motorists. Kochia has become resistant to the triazines [a broad spectrum, Group 5 herbicide. Refer to the chapter on Herbicides and Pesticides]. We used to use triazines but we no longer use them due to the damage they did to some crops on alkaline soils. We had a similar problem with Dicamba and wind drift, and a lot of the Group 2 herbicides [ALS inhibitors]. A lot of herbicides have the same mode of action, which is why an invasive species will eventually become resistant not just to one herbicide, but a variety of herbicides in that Action Group.”
In 2017, Slade Franklin told me: “The USDA is not putting much emphasis on management of invasive plants, other than annual grasses. Most of the federal funding is for annual grasses (e.g., cheatgrass) and aquatic pest species (e.g., mussels). There is some state and federal funding for medusahead and Ventenata dubia, which are now posing problems in Wyoming. We are considering the management of both of these species as priorities in Wyoming. We have tried to align our medusahead and Ventenata dubia programs with the US Department of the Interior’s Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species, National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response program.”
Related Sections & Next Section:
Timeline of important historical developments in the management of invasive plants/noxious weeds
Summaries and commentary by Dr. Delena Norris-Tull, Professor Emerita of Science Education, University of Montana Western,
September 2020.
The following timeline is extrapolated from various interviews with USA County, State, and Federal agency representatives that have been engaged with weed and pest management in Western States. Many of these individuals have worked in the weed and pest management field for thirty or more years, and thus provide important reflections on changes within the field over time.
Within this website, refer to the section State Laws for more details on the various laws listed below.
1870s-1890s
California passed its first noxious weed law, focused on control of Scotch and Canada thistles, in 1872. In 1883, the State authorized the formation of County weed control boards. In 1881, Washington passed its first noxious weed law, to control Canada thistle. These two large coastal States, with very large investments in agriculture, were already experiencing the economic impact of invasive species.
In my 2017 interview with Slade Franklin, Weed and Pest Coordinator, Wyoming Department of Agriculture, he provided quite a bit of historical context. Slade told me: “In 1895, Dr. Lyster H. Dewey, of the USDA Division of Botany, conducted research on Russian thistle in North Dakota and Nebraska. As a result of his research, he advocated for Federal laws on weed management, but was ignored.
“The first Wyoming weed law was the Russian Thistle and Canada Thistle Act of 1895. Aven Nelson, from the University of Wyoming, started the first herbarium in Wyoming. In 1896, he published the first weed bulletin, which was critical of the new weed legislation and included recommendations for better legislation, based in part on Dr. Dewey’s recommendations. This started the process that led to the development of the Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act in 1930.”
1910-1920s
- In 1913, Nevada passed a law allowing for plant quarantines, and passed the “Control of Insects, Pests, and Noxious Weeds Act” in 1917.
- In 1917, Nebraska passed a “Control of Insects, Pests, and Noxious Weeds” law.
- In 1919, California passed the “Weed Free Area Act,” which gave Counties authority to control weeds.
- In 1921, Montana passed a law to regulate “pests” in nurseries (including plant pests).
- In 1921, Washington passed a law regulating Noxious Weeds, and a law forming the State Noxious Weed Control Board and authorizing Counties to form weed control boards. In 1929, amendments were added to allow formation of Weed Districts, but only on land adjacent to or on cultivated land.
1930s
- In 1930, Wyoming passed the “Weed and Pest Control Act.”
- In 1937, Kansas passed the “Noxious Weed Law,” and Oregon passed the “Weed Control” law.
- In 1939, Montana passed the “Weed Control” law, which included regulations on weed seed.
Slade Franklin reported: “In 1937, Wyoming held its first Wyoming Pest Control Conference. This evolved into the Wyoming Weed and Pest Council about 1953. In 1938, the first annual Western Weed Control Conference was held. In 1944, one of the first western meetings of the Weed Science Society of America was held.”
The first Federal Seed Law was enacted in 1939. Laks Baker said that the early seed laws designated that any seed sold had to be at least 97% pure (weed free). Lars Baker, Weed and Pest Supervisor for Fremont County, Wyoming, pointed out in his interview with Becky McMillen, that, “Unfortunately, because it’s quite easy to have seed that is 99% pure, the seed companies started putting trash into the seed, to decrease it to 97% pure. This allowed many weed species to be introduced.”
1940s
- In 1941, Utah passed the “Noxious Weed Control Act.”
- Nevada passed a “Inspection & Control of Noxious Weeds” law in 1941.
- In 1941, Wyoming passed a seed law that restricted weed seed.
- Hawaii passed laws allowing quarantines of plants and non-domestic animals in 1941, and passed “Seed Rules” in 1946.
- Nebraska passed a Noxious Weed Control law in 1945.
- South Dakota passed the “Weed and Pest Control” bill in 1945, and a bill to regulate pesticides in 1943.
- Montana passed pesticide regulations in 1947.
- In 1945 Kansas passed restrictions on weed seed in nursery stock seed or in livestock feed.
1942 Western Weed Control Conference
[Link to the Minutes]
Within the 1942 Minutes of the Western Weed Control Conference, the impact of World War II on weed problems is discussed several times:
Report by Walter S. Ball, Chief of the California Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Rodent and Weed Control and Seed Inspection: “The war has brought about conditions that have made weed control… more important than in the past…The Chairman of the War Board met with our county agricultural group last December and stated that he felt that weed control should be continued as it definitely has a place in the program of food for victory…The results have been that our County Agricultural Commissioners, who are responsible for most of the work in the State, along with our Experiment Station, have continued putting in full effort on the weed control program. One of the problems we had was due to the evacuation of the Japanese, which naturally turned over large acreages of land to individual who were not wholly familiar with farming… The results are that there are now individuals in the farming game on these thousands of acres of Japanese areas who do not understand weed control, and who are buying seeds as cheaply as possible… which, as you know, presents a problem [Note: he is referring to the purchase of seed that is contaminated with weed seed]. These people need help. We are trying to be of service, and, also, to handle the regulatory phases… In some cases we have had very good cooperation. In other places, we still have a problem…
“Another point I wish to mention is that of ammonium sulfamate, the promotion of which is built up by commercial salesmen. We have checked the work and found this material is effective under certain conditions, and, no doubt, has a place in our weed control program, but at the present time it is not working as set forth by the salesmen, for we are unable to attain the results they claim can be attained. On Johnson grass it was effective; in fact, this was one of the best controls I have seen for Johnson grass. We had to use as much as 4 pounds per square rod, however, which is twice the recommended dosage. At around 24 cents per pound, the price is high. It is definitely in competition with carbon bisulphide in the control of deep-rooted perennials.
“Much money is being expended on Klamath Weed control. We now find that we can continue our work through the summer months. Borax may be applied through the summer months in the dry form at 8 to 10 pounds per square rod and, apparently, does not lose its effectiveness, and thus gives us early fall results. Under our conditions, we usually have light rains in October and November. The plant starts its growth early in the fall and with these light rains the roots pick up the material quite readily, thus giving very good kills. Formerly we confined our Borax work to a definite period of three or four months during our rainy season, depending on the rain to carry it into the soil. We have gained a great deal and covered thousands of acres through summer applications on our range program.
“An AAA program has given us a great deal of help… They ordered some 800 tons of Borax to be used by the landowners, applied in most cases under the supervision of the County Agricultural Commissioner. The farmer received 3 cents per pound of Borax applied.”
[Note: The Agricultural Adjustment Agency was a Federal Agency formed by the Agricultural Adjustment Act during the Great Depression, as part of Roosevelt’s New Deal. The AAA was tasked with increasing agricultural prices by making contracts with farmers to reduce surplus by paying for them to take acreage out of production. The agency also purchased livestock for slaughter. Apparently, significant funds from the AAA were used to promote accepted practices for weed control, and to purchase chemicals for that purpose.]
During the war years, a number of chemicals that had begun to be used previously were not readily available. Some were being used in bomb making. Hand labor and cultivation and plowing of the soil were the primary means of weed control, especially during those years. Crop rotation was sometimes used. Flooding was used in some areas, where water was available. Burning with oil was also widely used. Drying was sometimes used, to reduce weeds in irrigation canals. In 1942, Kansas reported the use of salt on highways and other non-agricultural lands.
Sinox was a new chemical, mentioned in the 1942 minutes. In one report, it is recommended that it be mixed with ammonium sulfate, to lower the cost of the application.
One of the most toxic chemicals used in the 1940s was sodium arsenite. In the 1942 conference minutes, the following report was included, “Perhaps the best treatment on grasses is the use of sodium arsenite as the spray, particularly on such weeds as false dandelion or cat’s ear, used when the grass is dormant. In many trials this treatment has eliminated 95% of the weeds. 12 to 15 pounds of dry sodium arsenite in 100 gallons of water per acre, on the average, has been the best dosage. The field should not be used for grazing immediately after spraying however, because of the poisonous properties of the spray.”
One technique that was tried was seed devitalization [At that time, seed devitalization used either heat or manual grinding with a hammer mill, to destroy the ability of the weed seed to geminate. With heat, the trick is to heat the seeds enough to prevent weed seeds from germinating, but not so hot as to prevent crop seeds from germinating. Today, seed devitalization is also used to prevent crop seeds from geminating before intended, or, as in the case of popcorn or cereal grains, to never germinate. One modern technique is the process of hydrating and then freezing crop seed, in order to prevent germination but preserve the seed DNA and protein].
At the 1942 conference, Mr. Earl Hutchings from Utah reported on this method:
“I think we should take the lead in finding an economical method of devitalization of noxious weed seeds. Possibly on a community basis, and by a method by which the producer can receive a fair salvage value, inducing better cooperation in this important problem. It might be accomplished by steam or dry heat on a large scale and induce the policy of cleaning grain at harvest time so that the movement of such a commodity in commercial avenues would not be such a temptation to farmers to purchase and plant. Our present method of devitalization is by the hammer mill process which is proved none too satisfactory.”
In some cases, livestock were used as part of the weed control program, a practice which remains in use in various States in 2020. An interesting test on weed seed viability, after consumption by liestock, is reported in the 1942 minutes:
“Mr. Jenkins also reported on a test carried out to determine the level of weed seed viability, after being consumed by sheep. The test on seven weed species found a percentage of seed viability after passing through the sheep, with percentages ranging from 0.4% to 72%. Four species had seed viability above 20%. In some cases, seed remained viable even when it did not pass out of the sheep for ten days.”
Refer to the 1942 minutes for details of the success and failures of several methods and chemicals that were used, prior to the advent of herbicides (2,4-D, the first hormone herbicide, was invented during the war, and was just beginning to become available for farmers and ranchers to use to kill weeds, after the war).
Mr. Ball also said, “In closing I should like to mention seed. I think the sooner we get into the seed end of this weed program, the planting of clean seed and the harvesting of clean seed or seed from clean fields, the sooner we are going to handle one of our most important problems.” The minutes point out that weed-free seed laws were not yet implemented in all states, by 1942.
Wyoming’s weed-free seed law was passed in 1941. According to George Hittle, in his 2013 interview with Becky McMillen, “Wyoming and Montana developed the first two certified weed-free forage programs in the US. Montana had its own small program started about the same time as Wyoming’s. Montana’s program started out in Dillon. Then other Western States became interested, and it went regional. It’s pretty well nationwide now.”
Review the 1942 minutes for an interesting report from the US Bureau of Reclamation on their successes and failures in weed control, and for reference to the newly recognized problem of weeds in the irrigation ditches (many “weeds” mentioned in 1942 are native species). Included in that report is the following information: “In a recent survey of crop seeds in Colorado, made by Bruce J. Thornton, some surprising facts were disclosed. The average quality of crop seed sampled showed that 84.95% contained noxious weed seeds. The average number of noxious weed seeds per pound was 233, which would be 2.7 weeds per square yard. The poorest quality of seeds sampled averaged 2,084 noxious and 17,760 common weed seeds per acre, or 206 weed seeds per square yard.”
Throughout the 1942 minutes, weed “eradication,” as the goal, is mentioned repeatedly. It is not until many years later that individuals working in the field of weed control begin to understand that eradication is not realistic, and that keeping weeds managed is the best they can hope for. But even today, State laws related to the control of noxious weeds commonly still refer to “eradication” as the goal.
In the 1942 minutes, in a report on research of the effectiveness of using various oil sprays on weeds, among the results was the following: “Russian knapweed was not greatly reduced by four sprayings. In one case where the infestation originally consisted of about 10% knapweed and 90% hoary cress, the knapweed has now taken the plot, having increased while the hoary cress was killed out.”
Delena’s reflections on the 1942 conference minutes: It is interesting that, at the 1942 Western Weed conference, there is no mention in any reports of the use of native species to combat noxious weeds. But at this time, much of the emphasis was still on cropland. When the use of “competitive crops” is described, non-native species such as alfalfa and Sudan grass are considered, rather than native species. Even when grasses are listed as good competitive crops, no mention is made of native grasses. Of course, at this time in US history, there was little native seed available anywhere. Chemical herbicides, other than those few mentioned in the reports, had not yet been invented. Biocontrols also had not yet been introduced. Reference to biocontrol insects first show up in the 1945 and 1946 minutes.
1945 Western Weed Control Conference
[Link to the Minutes]
In November, 1945, in a report given by one of the committees of the Western Weed Control Conference to the USDA Plant Industry Committee, Memphis, Tennessee, the committee explained that, “Several states have passed laws and have set up fairly good constructive weed programs. However, the majority of the states have inadequate weed control programs or no program at all. Too often, however, action is taken by a state legislature setting up provision for inspection and control without appropriating ample funds to carry out the enforcement for these purposes.
“Most of the state weed control programs now in operation follow along the same general lines as the program in the State of Washington. The Washington law makes it possible for 50% of the landowners in any area by mutual agreement to form a weed control district or a weed extermination area... It also makes possible the formation of an area of any size from one section to a whole county… The law provides for the inclusion of public rights-of-way, for Federal, State and County lands. These inclusions are necessary in any weed control program because of watersheds or other means of re-infesting land where weeds have once been eradicated.
“There are several weaknesses in the Washington law which is true of the weed laws of other states. It does not provide for definite coordination with the existing seed law, nor does it provide for control of the movement of livestock from weed infested areas through weed control areas. It also fails to provide for prevention of the movement of vehicles along public highways carrying weed infested materials. Also there are no regulations regarding the sale or movement of weed infested grains.
“In many areas the cost of eradication of weeds on the more marginal types of land would be greater than the value of the property on which the weed eradication program might be carried out. It, therefore, would seem that the eradication of weeds must of necessity be a long range program.
“It is apparent that noxious weeds cause greater loss to the farmers than all livestock diseases, plant diseases, and insect pests put together. While all farmers realize the menace of noxious weeds, many seem to have an apathetic attitude toward the problem of weed control. We believe the reason for this is weed infestation has developed slowly over a period of many years, and many farmers seem to believe nothing can be done about it, and that weeds are just something they have to put up with. This undoubtedly is a reason why there has been no greater demand on the part of the farmers for an aggressive Federal-State weed control program in past years…
“A weed control program must of necessity be a long-time program… When established in any state, section or nationally, it should be set up to extend over a long period of time, not just one or two years and then neglected. If neglected after such a short period, the money spent on the initial investment is entirely wasted…
“It is unanimously agreed among those who have made a study of noxious weeds that there is a critical need for a strong, aggressively administered, and fully financed National Weed Control Program.
“It is further agreed that the United States Department of Agriculture should create within the Bureau of Plant Industry, a Weed Division to deal with the various phases of the nation’s weed problems and extend its research, investigations and experiments with noxious weeds on a national scale to assist in developing the most efficient and economical methods of control and eradication.”
From the 1945 Minutes of the Western Weed Control Conference, the formation of the first North Central Conference, including 13 states, is announced. Members of the Western Weed Control Conference assisted the North Central group in getting formed. Mr. Walter S. Ball, Chief of the California Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Rodent and Weed Control and Seed Inspection, was one of the individuals who assisted in the formation of the North Central Group. He attended the first North Central Weed Control Conference. He reported the following, from the North Central Conference, to the attendees of the 1945 Western Weed Control Conference.
In opening comments by Mr. C.H. Schrader, Department of Agriculture for Minnesota, he pointed out that, “If the weed losses in the United States estimated by the US Chamber of Commerce were $3 billion in 1930, we can easily suspect that they are now near $5 billion, or an average of more than $100 million per state…”
Mr. Ball described a speech by the representative of the US Department of Agriculture, Dr. M.A. McCall [from the USDA Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils, & Agricultural Engineering], in which he pointed out that while this conference focused on control of bindweed, at least 30 plants can now be considered noxious weeds. Dr. McCall mentioned Johnson grass, Russian knapweed, white top, and poverty weed, and stated that, “More than 2,000,000 acres of good agricultural land [are] virtually out of production because of noxious weeds... The Bureau of Reclamation spends more than $100,000 a year dragging weeds out of irrigation canals and drainage ditches...” He also mentioned that there are about 39 species of shrubs and trees now infesting some 10,000 acres of good pasture or rangeland.
Dr. McCall described a report by Mr. F.L. Timmons, the Chairman of the Research Committee, who listed the following areas needed for immediate research: “the development of a cropping system and rotation for the control of annual weeds; development of inexpensive methods of weed control on low valued lands; development of methods for the control of erosion during the eradication of perennials; the improvement of tillage machinery; the continuous testing of herbicides to determine their relative effectiveness…; the improvement of machinery for the application of dry material;… research on the occurrence of weed seeds in crop seeds and in feed grains;… the improvement of machinery for cleaning crop seeds.”
Mr. Ball also included the following report from the North Central Conference from Mr. L.W. Kephart: “One of the brighter aspects in the post-war weed picture is the probability that new chemical weed killers will be available of a variety and potency which we have not heretofore known… Weed eradication, as a science, has always lagged far behind other kinds of pest control in the development of technical aids, and our knowledge of the nature and utilization of herbicides is crude indeed by comparison with the highly intricate knowledge of insecticides, fungicides, germicides, and the like... [In the past 50 years] scarcely a dozen men have had the opportunity to give their full time and thought to the possibilities of chemicals in the control of weeds. As a result, the science of chemical weed control is still elementary and farmers have had available for their use, at least until very recently, only such unimaginative materials as arsenic, chlorate, sulfuric acid, and petroleum oil.”
Mr. Ball reported that, “Some of the materials Mr. Kephart mentioned which will be in the field for further research are the sulfur compounds, the acetic acids, the aldehydes, organic peroxides, formates, oximes, chlorinated hydrocarbons, chlorinated phenols, and the dinitro compounds.”
Mr. Ball summarized a report by Mr. A.K. Hepperly, Agricultural Agent of the C.B. & Q. Railroad, who found that the railroads’ use of chlorate to eradicate weeds are “so erratic that it requires so much labor for the original application and the follow-up treatments, and that the seedling problem, together with the fire hazard of sodium chlorate, makes it fall far short of a solution to the railroads’ problem of weed eradication… Considerable Borax has been used on the railroad with good results… inspection during the summer of 1943 showed good kill at most locations, some of which were 100%. Inspection in 1944, however, showed that Borax can be as erratic as sodium chlorate.”
Mr. Ball also learned that, “it appeared that all the [North Central] states had some type of laws and regulations but there were very few states that had the manpower and the facilities for the enforcement of such laws.”
The 1945 Conferences seem to be the first time that 2,4-D is mentioned. 2.4-D was not made available for public use until after the war. Mr. C.T. Seeley, from the Agronomy Division of the University of Idaho gave a report on the new developments with the use of hormones in weed control. He described the use of 2,4-D: “It wasn’t until 1941 that Nevada thought you might be able to use it for weed control, and it wasn’t until 1944 that any actual work was done,… as far as weed killers was concerned. 2,4-D was picked primarily because it happened to be one that was easily manufactured and was available in large quantities...”
1945 also appears to be the first time major concerns about waterweeds, especially in irrigation ditches, are discussed.
At the 1945 Conference, Dr. McCall stated that few federal resources are presently available to tackle the weed problem. He expressed willingness to ask the US Forest Service and other Federal Departments to increase financial support for weed removal on federally controlled lands.
It has been apparent from these minutes and conversations with various State Agency representatives that the Federal Government has lagged way behind the States in tackling the weed problems.
At the 1945 Conference, Mr. Thomas H. Van Meter, from the US Forest Service, stationed in Idaho, gave a report on “Noxious Weed Control on National Forests.” The report is summarized:
“For many years the forest service has been combating plants poisonous to livestock and has included this control in the range management program. During the last 10 years, an invasion of noxious plants not native to our forest lands has been noted; and in some cases, spreading at an alarming rate. This invasion has been on past depleted areas that have not regained their normal vegetative balance, and control measures have been inaugurated on many areas. We believe that proper stocking and range management will generally take care of any infestation over a period of years.
“Undesirable or noxious weeds on National Forests fall into slightly different classes than those on cultivated areas. These weeds,… are classified as:
1. plants poisonous to live stock;
2. invasion plants;
3. plants noxious to adjacent cultivated lands.”
It is interesting to note that most of the plants listed in that report, as causing problems in the National Forests, are native species.
Mr. Van Meter also said, “To date the Forest Service has financed their program from the limited range improvement funds allotted, as no direct appropriations have been made for this type of work.”
The 1945 Western Weed Control Conference is also the first time that biocontrol insects are mentioned. Mr. Ball reported on research being conducted in cooperation with the US Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine on two biological control insects. These insects have been effective in use in Australia. He stated, “These insects have been brought into California, after thoroughly investigating the possibilities of their detriment to other plants or crops. A complete series of starvation tests have been carried out to prove that they would not be destructive to other plants. They attack nothing but Hypericum (goatweed). We do not know anything as yet about the natural predators, which may prey upon these insects. If they are present, our hopes for control will be very limited. We are not hoping to use these insects on those areas, at least at the present time, where we can carry on our regular program with Borax and cultivation.”
1946 Western Weed Control Conference
[Link to the Minutes]
The 1946 minutes of the Western Weed Control Conference indicate increased cooperation from several Federal Agencies, although funding remains too low.
The 1946 minutes show the rapid increase in the use of 2,4-D. Many organizations are looking to 2,4-D and other as-yet-to-be developed chemicals to be the solution to the weed problem. But several statements within the minutes raise some concerns about the use of 2,4-D.
In the Wyoming report to the conference, the following statement is included: “Although the State Department has not recommended 2,4-D, because of the need for further experimental information, many individuals purchased it for personal use…”
In the Colorado report to the conference, it is stated that, “Considerable 2,4-D was used in the State last year by individuals. Although the results were frequently disappointing, especially as compared to the advance claims made for herbicides of this type, indications are that they were sufficiently satisfactory to encourage a much wider use of the materials this coming season.”
In most Western States in 1946, a number of other chemicals remained in use, or had been recently introduced. Sinox, Carbon bisulfide were still in use. Altacide, Borax/Borascu, and ammate appeared to be new to the scene.
In the 1946 conference, a committee of the Western Weed Control Conference reported that they had attended a 1945 meeting of the USDA Plant Industry Committee, telling the Federal Agency, “Several states have passed laws and have set up fairly good constructive weed programs. However, the majority of the states have inadequate weed control programs or no program at all. Too often, however, action is taken by a state legislature setting up provision for inspection and control without appropriating ample funds to carryout the enforcement for these purposes…
“In many areas the cost of eradication of weeds on the more marginal types of land would be greater than the value of the property on which the weed eradication program might be carried out. It, therefore, would seem that the eradication of weeds must of necessity be a long range program.
“It is apparent that noxious weeds cause greater loss to the farmers than all livestock diseases, plant diseases, and insect pests put together. While all farmers realize the menace of noxious weeds, many seem to have an apathetic attitude toward the problem of weed control. We believe the reason for this is weed infestation has developed slowly over a period of many years, and many farmers seem to believe nothing can be done about it, and that weeds are just something they have to put up with. This undoubtedly is a reason why there has been no greater demand on the part of the farmers for an aggressive Federal-State weed control program in past years…
“A weed control program must of necessity be a long-time program… When established in any state, section or nationally, it should be set up to extend over a long period of time, not just one or two years and then neglected. If neglected after such a short period, the money spent on the initial investment is entirely wasted…
“It is unanimously agreed among those who have made a study of noxious weeds that there is a critical need for a strong, aggressively administered, and fully financed National Weed Control Program.
“It is further agreed that the United States Department of Agriculture should create within the Bureau of Plant Industry, a Weed Division to deal with the various phases of the nation’s weed problems and extend its research, investigations and experiments with noxious weeds on a national scale to assist in developing the most efficient and economical methods of control and eradication.”
The committee provided fairly detailed recommendations to the USDA, in regards to the need for well-coordinated and funded efforts in the following four areas: research, education, the identification of effective control practices, and Federal regulations.
In the 1946 minutes, more and more Western States are recognizing that non-croplands are going to require more attention in the future. Rangeland, right-of-ways, fence lines, irrigation canals, and ditches will need constant attention. On rangelands, native plant species remain on the list of noxious weeds in a number of States, due to fairly significant livestock losses, due to plant toxicity, which occurs in areas where rangelands have little alternative available plants for livestock.
At the 1946 Western Weed Control Conference, a report given by T.F. Yost stated, “The North Central States held the second annual Weed Conference in St. Paul. The two-day conference was attended by nearly 100 delegates, and all [13] states in the region were represented. Nearly 100 commercial representatives attended as well. Four standing work committees met on the first afternoon: 1. Research; 2. Uniform State Weed and Seed Laws; 3. Federal Extension Weed Specialist; and 4: Federal Legislation to Control Interstate Movement of Noxious Weed Infested Seed, Feed and other Material; and Movement and Sale of Weed Infested Materials by Federal Agencies…
“Several states in the North Central area have excellent weed laws which are supporting a good program and which are producing worthwhile results. Several other states have excellent laws on the statute books but are not supporting an active program. Other states have antiquated weed laws which need to be modernized and brought up to date and put on an active basis…
“Before closing, I desire to pay special tribute to the excellent research work done by the US Bureau of Plant Industry, to the AAA program for making payments for noxious weed control and to the other Federal agencies who have properly assumed their weed responsibilities.
“At the present time, the Federal Government is doing two important things bearing on the weed problem, which are research dealing with eradication or control, and administration of the federal Seed Act. Both of these activities are being conducted in an excellent manner…
“In the weed control program the National Congress has curiously adopted what seems to be a hands-off policy. Maybe it would be better to say that the Congress seems not to be interested in the national weed control problem. Some of the states, in order to protect themselves against the weed menace, have been forced to initiate and support their own eradication and control program, while the Federal Government has set idly by and has not even done a good job of looking on. The weed problem is so broad in scope, so devastating in effect, and so complicated when considered from the overall standpoint, that we believe the time is here when Congress should sit up and take notice that there is a weed condition in our country that is of national importance, which if not properly handled will undermine the greatest resource of our nation, which is the soil. There are some aspects of the weed problem that cannot be handled on the state level. These problems cut across state lines and can only be handled by Federal action.”
In another report from the North Central Conference, it was stated that, “The course of events to come was accurately prophesied at the meeting in Omaha by Mr. L.W. Kephart of the USDA in his discussion of ‘Chemical Weed Killers After the War.’ After reporting briefly on preliminary results with 2,4-D in 1944, he advanced the opinion that revolutionary developments in chemical weed control would soon present weed research workers and control officials with the problems that they were hardly prepared to handle. He predicted widespread publicity and sensational claims for the new weed killers and pointed out the need for a disinterested agency to assemble information, correlate the facts and act as an umpire in the situation. He suggested that our research committee was the logical group to do this in the north central area.
“By the end of January, 1945, much of Mr. Kephart’s prophecy had materialized. Several sensational articles and advertisements about 2,4-D had appeared in print, and the barometer of public interest was rising rapidly as indicated by the sudden flood of inquiries received by nearly every weed control and research worker in the country. It was immediately evident that our meager facilities and personnel for weed research would not be able to gain information rapidly enough to protect the public interest except through organized effort.”
At the end of the 1946 Western Weed Control Conference, a report was given by Mr. H.R. Offord, from the US Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, entitled, “Control of Host Plants in a Plant Disease Program with Special Reference to Ribes and White Pine Blister Rust Disease.” This disease is caused by an Asian fungus, and remains a threat today to North American species of white pines, especially in high elevations. The report described Federal eradication programs underway, to kill various plants that carry viruses and rusts that damage crops. The plants being eradicated, and their diseases were:
- wild cotton, pink bollworm, in Florida
- abandoned pear trees, pear psylla, in the Northwest
- barberry, black stem rust on cereals in the main grain-growing states
- Ribes, currants and gooseberries, white pine blister rust, in various areas of the U.S.
A wide array of mechanical and chemical methods were being used to eradicate Ribes populations. It is notable and concerning that barberry and Ribes species, which are native species, were targeted for “eradication.” Today, we know that several other native plant species also transmit the rust. Today the control of White Pine Blister Rust has focused on trimming infected tree branches and the development of pines that are resistant to the fungus. It is interesting to note that, historically, concern for the loss of pine trees has to do with their importance in the lumber industry. It was considered acceptable to destroy other native plants because they were not considered economically important.
1950s
- In 1951, Hawaii passed “Noxious Weed Rules,” and Idaho passed the “Pure Seed Law.”
- In 1953, Idaho passed the “Idaho Commercial Feed Law,’ regulating noxious weeds in feed.
- In 1953, New Mexico passed the “Noxious Weed Control Act,” including regulations on weed seed, and regulations on pesticides.
- Oregon passed a law regulating weed seed in 1955.
- Nevada passed the “Pesticide Act” in 1955, and in 1957, added amendments to the quarantine law to regulate weed seed in “agricultural products.”
- In 1957, Wyoming passed regulations on pesticides and quarantines, and formed County Weed and Pest Control Boards.
1960s
- In the 1960s, a number of additional States added regulations related to weed-free commercial seed or feed: California (seed: 1962), Colorado (seed: 1963, feed: 1963); Nebraska (seed: 1969), Nevada (seed: 1969), Washington (feed: 1965).
- In 1961, Washington passed the “Washington Pesticide Act,” which was replaced in 1971 with the “Washington Pesticide Control Act.”
- In 1963, Colorado passed the “Pesticide Act.”
- In 1962, California established several weed eradication areas. In 1967, California law established the Invasive Species Council. And the State passed Section 403, which states that the Dept. of Food & Agriculture shall prevent the introduction and spread of noxious weeds. Also the State passed the “Seed Law,” and added regs on classifying noxious weed seed in 1977. In 1968 California established regulations for inspecting plant pests, including noxious weeds, and seeds. In 1967, California passed Pest Control Operations law, to regulate pesticides.
- In 1969, Nevada passed a law authorizing County Weed Control Districts.
In my 2017 interview with John Samson, Agronomist for the Wyoming Department of Transportation, he said: “In the 1960s, certain agricultural chemicals were used on the land a lot, on annual row crops”
[Note: Refer to the section of this website on Herbicides: History and Impacts for some of the history of use of chemicals in the US].
1970s
- A number of additional Western States added or enhanced their pesticide regulations in the 1970s: California (1978), Hawaii (1972), Idaho (1976), Washington (1971).
- In 1970, Idaho passed the “Noxious Weeds” law, and authorized the Director of Agriculture and Counties to control weeds. This law also formed the Idaho Noxious Weed Advisory Committee.
- In 1971, Oregon passed an Invasive Species law, which established an Invasive Species Council, regulations for County inspectors, and quarantines.
- In 1973, California established an official list of “noxious weeds.”
- In 1973, Wyoming updated and combined its various noxious weeds and pest laws to create the “Wyoming Weed & Pest Control Act.”
- In 1978, New Mexico enacted the “Harmful Plants” law.
In my 2017 interview with Slade Franklin, he said, “Since 1973, [Wyoming] has been divided into 23 Weed and Pest Control Districts. While the boundaries of these Districts are based on County lines, their funding does not come out of the normal County budget. They are funded by mill levies (up to two mill levies). The Wyoming Department of Transportation allocates funding to the Wyoming Department of Agriculture, which in turn allocates funds to the districts. The Weed and Pest Control Districts manage weeds along state and interstate highways within their county.”
In a 2013 interview with Becky McMillen, George Hittle, the first Wyoming Weed and Pest Coordinator, said “The Federal Plant Protection Quarantine Act deals with management of undesirable plants on Federal land. After it went through Congress, it was attached to the Federal Noxious Weed Control Act of 1974.”
George Hittle explained that the Carlson-Foley Act of 1977, “was supposed to provide a mechanism for the Federal land management agencies to pay into States for management of noxious weeds on Federal lands.” But it was not until 1990, that this Act was amended to ensure collaboration between Federal agencies and the States.
1980s
- In the 1980s, several more States enacted laws to restrict weed seed in commercial seed, feed, or forage: Alaska (seed: 1983), Oregon (seed: 1988), South Dakota (seed: 1988; forage: 1983), Texas (seed: 1981), Washington (seed: 1989).
- In 1981, Hawaii enacted regulations for pineapple and sugar cane hay to be “reasonably free” of weeds. In 1982, the State added restrictions on Crotalaria seed in grains and feeds, but did not mention other weed seeds.
- In 1981, Texas passed a law that authorized the forming of Noxious Weed Control Districts. The District Boards can determine the District boundaries.
- In 1982, Idaho authorized formation of the Idaho Association of Weed Control Superintendents.
- In 1982, North Dakota implemented pesticide regulations. In 1986, North Dakota passed regulations on weed seed in agricultural seed.
- In 1988, Nebraska implemented a biological control program.
John Samson explained, “I worked for the US Soil Conservation Service (SCS; now the NRCS) in Nebraska from 1983-1994. We worked mostly with private land owners. Today, the NRCS is mainly regulatory. They no longer do much boots-on-the-ground work with land owners. There is more emphasis on office electronic planning….
“In 1986, the USDA implemented the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). This program has survived to this day, under the NRCS assistance. Through joint funding with the federal Food Security Act, the CRP provides subsidies to land owners to put their properties into mandatory conservation reserve. Today, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is the name of the agency that manages this program along side NRCS. Many land owners allowed their farms to go fallow (‘leaving the land alone’), sometimes for 20 years under contract rentals. Under the CRP, many more farmers in the Great Plains states signed up for the subsidies than did farmers in the eastern states. The criteria for the subsidies was that you had to have ‘highly erodible cropland’ due to wind or water erosion.”
According to the 2018 USDA agency website, the CRP is a “land conservation program administered by the Farm Service Agency. In exchange for a yearly rental payment, farmers enrolled in the program agree to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and plant species that will improve environmental health and quality. Contracts for land enrolled in CRP are 10-15 years in length. The long-term goal of the program is to re-establish valuable land cover to help improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife habitat. Signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, CRP is the largest private-lands conservation program in the United States. Thanks to voluntary participation by farmers and land owners, CRP has improved water quality, reduced soil erosion, and increased habitat for endangered and threatened species.”
Also, according to the CRP website, “Highly erodible lands are fragile and vulnerable to erosion. For farmers and landowners with cropland exceeding an Erosion Index >20, establishing grass or tree cover will help maintain the long-term health of the land. In addition, this type of cover will provide habitat for numerous mammal and bird species and serve as a resource for shelter, nesting, and food. Enrolling these lands also makes economic sense, as they often fall short as productive crop growing areas.”
John Samson said, “Under the CRP, land owners tended to re-seed the cropland with introduced grasses, such as tall fescue and smooth brome [Note: these introduced grasses are now considered to be invasive species in some areas of the US]. Native grass seed was not readily available in the early years, so it was not used much….
“When I was working for the SCS in Nebraska, we pushed to promote re-seeding with cool and warm season native grasses. We tried to grow native grass seed for land owners to use. This extended the limited commercial native seed supplies available in the mid-1980s.”
In addition, there are other Federal programs that provide support to farmers and ranchers to promote habitat restoration, such as various programs managed through the NRCS, including the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, the Healthy Forests Reserve Program, and the Sage Grouse Initiative. Most of these federal initiatives are funded through the Farm Bill.
1990s
- In the 1990s, a few more States added regulations related to weed-free forage: Colorado (forage: 1993), Montana (forage: 1995).
- In 1990, Colorado passed the “Colorado Noxious Weed Act.”
- In the 1990s, a number of States implemented laws, or amended existing noxious weed laws, to specifically address aquatic noxious weeds, as these plants became more and more of an economic burden: Idaho (1999); Texas (1997). In 1999, California passed the “Ballast Management for Control of Nonindigenous Species Act,” which modified previous laws related to preventing pollutants in ballast water expelled from ships.
- In 1997, Texas updated their Pesticide laws.
- The 1990s is the decade wherein biological control agents become more widespread, and when various Western States passed laws to regulate their use: Colorado: 1990; Kansas: 1992.
In 1996, Sheley, Svejcar, and Maxwell, published an article to propose, “A theoretical framework for developing successional weed management strategies on rangeland.” Within this website, refer to the section Native Plants, for details of their framework.
The Management of Undesirable Plant Species on Federal Lands Act, 1990, brought the Federal land management agencies into working with the States. Refer to the Interview with George Hittle for details on the extensive process of getting this amendment approved by Congress.
John Samson told me: “In 1994, I came to Wyoming. I took advantage of the USDA buy-out of employees. To reduce costs during major budget cuts, during the 50th anniversary of the agency, the USDA got rid of a lot of staff, moving into a more computerized agency. As a result, the agency lost a lot of knowledge from individuals who had worked there many years, such as knowledge about the causes and impacts of the 1930s Dust Bowl years and the 1950s droughts in the Plains States. President Clinton worked with the US Congress to balance the federal budget in the 1990s. They succeeded in balancing the budget, but made a lot of budget cuts to many federal agencies in the process.”
2000s
- In 2000, Oklahoma passed a Noxious Weeds law.
- In 2003, Hawaii authorized the “Hawaii Invasive Species Council,” and charged the Council with coordinating efforts between agencies to manage Aquatic invasive Species. In 2007, Hawaii passed the Non-indigenous Aquatic Species law.
- In 2003, Texas passed a Noxious & Invasive Species law. In 2005, the State passed a law authorizing both the Texas Department of Agriculture and the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department to designate and control invasive plants. The TP&W controls aquatic invasive species (1997 law). In 2009, Texas established the Texas Invasive Species Coordinating Committee.
- In 2006, the Washington Invasive Species Council was created to coordinate activities among various agencies and organizations. In 2014, the Washington passed legislation to authorize the WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife to manage aquatic invasive species.
- In 2008, Alaska passed the “Noxious weed, invasive plant, & agricultural pest management & education law.” While laws allowing standards for seeds had been in effect since 1983, and quarantines and seed inspection and destruction had been allowed at least since 1959, this appears to be the first law laying out the responsibilities for managing and providing education on noxious weeds/invasive plants.
- In 2008, Idaho passed the “Idaho Invasive Species Act.”
- In 2008, Utah passed the “Aquatic Invasive Species Interdiction Act.”
- In 2009, North Dakota passed the “Noxious Weed Control” law. In 2020, the State passed regulations on weed seed in commercial feed.
- In 2009, Montana passed the “Aquatic Invasive Species Act.”
- In 2009, Oregon created the Invasive Species Council, with members that represent concerns related to both terrestrial and aquatic invasive species.
- In 2014, California established a system for rating noxious weeds, to assist land managers in controlling weeds.
- In 2015, Nevada passed regulations on weed seed in commercial feed, and in forage.
- In 2020, Utah passed the “Utah Noxious Weed Act,” which includes regulations for weed seed in commercial seed, livestock feed, forage (hay, straw) and manure.
In my 2017 interview with Phil Westra, Weed Scientist from Colorado State University, he told me, “During my career, I’ve seen a massive shift in crop tilling practices. While in the past, farmers would till the soil deeply after the harvest, now there is minimal till or reduced till, due to the need to reduce the use of herbicides. Weed management is being threatened by the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds…. 85-90% of crop land is now managed with reduced till.”
In my 2017 interview with Dr. George Beck, Weed Scientist from Colorado State University, he explained, “The term ‘Noxious’ has its founding in agriculture. ‘Rangeland’ is dealt with differently than ‘agricultural lands.’ Rangeland is expected to have minimal inputs. In other words, there is little money available for improving rangeland. There are little funds for managing weeds on rangeland.”
George Beck said, “Invasive species are the biggest problem in the western US. In Colorado now there is tremendous importance being placed on re-planting with native species. Almost all re-seeding now is with natives. Except where the soil is so bad, in which case we might plant a non-native brome grass for grazing.”
In my 2018 visit to the NRCS Laramie County Field Office, Cheyenne Wyoming, I interviewed Jim Cochran, District Manager, and Jim Pike, District Conservationist. Jim Pike told me, “The Farm Bill includes statements about the importance of controlling weeds, but it’s the landowners’ responsibility to do it, so often it just doesn’t happen.
“Depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer [the main source of water for a massive area of the West, from Nebraska to West Texas] is a major problem here that keeps us busy. Before the Farm Bill was re-authorized in 2014, there was a program, AWEP [Agricultural Water Enhancement Program], that provided some funds for surface and ground water conservation. We were able to use those funds on a project to pay people to give up their water rights to conserve the aquifer. We were able to reduce the annual water consumption in Laramie County by 1,000,000,000 gallons. But the AWEP program is now gone.” [The AWEP Program was suspended, under the 2014 reauthorization of the Farm Bill.]
Jim Pike said, “If you scored all the agencies responsible to manage weeds, Federal, State and County, we would probably all get Cs…. NRCS is not authorized to make management recommendations. The County Weed and Pest agency is supposed to educate the landowners on management practices.”
John Samson is the Agronomist for the Environmental Services Department, Wyoming Department of Transportation (DOT). John has worked in the field of native plant reclamation for 35 years. In my 2017 interview, he provided me with the following insights: “Compared to the southern DOT states, Wyoming is not big on chemical [herbicide] management of weeds. In Wyoming, we use a lot of native species along roadways. Part of the Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) approach uses native species dynamics [i.e., allelopathic natural compounds].
“I recently attended the annual meeting of representatives from the state Departments of Transportation, the National Roadside Vegetation Management Association meeting, held in Springfield, Missouri. The southeastern states have a different approach than we have in the west. In the southeast, they have a lot more rainfall than we do. They mow roadways three-four times a year, and they plant Bermuda grass, and bahiagrass. In Wyoming, we can only afford to mow once a year, with an emphasis on roadside shoulders in rural segments. We mow in late August or September, at the end of the growing season. This is primarily due to the cost, but secondarily, we want the native plants to go to seed so they can be mulched and spread by the mowers’ pass.”
[Note from Delena: Bermuda grass and bahiagrass are now considered “invasive species” by a number of agencies in various Southern States. For example, the Nature Conservancy has produced a brochure on management of bahiagrass as an invasive. The State of Florida has a number of native plant restoration projects underway that are battling bahaigrass. The Native Prairies Association of Texas now treats bahiagrass as an invasive. However, it is still touted as an important perennial grass for grazing livestock in some states in the Southeastern US. For example, refer to the University of Georgia’s Cooperative Extension website on Bahiagrass, http://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=B1362. In addition, the NRCS still promotes its use, while warning of its potential to become invasive.]
John Samson continued: “The Louisiana Department of Transportation uses private contractors to mow. Since they are paid by the acre, there is economic pressure to do repeat mowings. Keep in mind that Louisiana has invasive tall brush that gets easily out of control in one year, which is not true in arid Wyoming.”
John stated, “In the past 15 years, federal agencies are promoting native grass seed much more. For example, in Iowa, along roadsides, there used to be mainly introduced tall fescue and smooth brome. Now there are a lot of native tall grass species in roadways, thanks to the Iowa DOT and the University of Northern Iowa Roadside Program.
“Wyoming is largely a high desert. It is very difficult to dryland farm here without irrigation. I use all native species in the plantings in the Wyoming roadways. We divide the state up into five Ecoregions, and use the dominant natives from that region: the Black Hills, the Northern Great Plains, the Rocky Mountains east and foothills, the Rocky Mountains west and foothills, and the Wyoming Basin [also called the Red Desert, a very high desert split by the Continental Divide].
“We’re using indigenous grasses, forbs, and shrubs. We are careful about where we plant large forbs and shrubs, so that they are not planted too close to roadways. We have to be careful about animals hiding in rubber rabbitbrush and big sagebrush, for example. I examine WYDOT road safety data for animal hotspots, to reduce the incidents of automobile collisions caused by game animals.
“Native seed planting occurs through both the Wyoming DOT and the BLM [US Bureau of Land Management]. I am in charge of all the planting plans done through the Wyoming DOT.
“Today, we buy gravel, rock, etc., for the right-of-ways from private land owners. Some of the contracts we have with land owners are decades old. Sometimes I have to compromise, and use some introduced species, to please these land owners. The Wyoming Reclamation Policy, through the BLM State Office, already requires the use of ‘self-perpetuating native plant community’ on BLM pits, plant sites, and quarries used on WYDOT projects.
“Native American tribal members have an arrangement with the Wyoming DOT. They harvest culturally significant forbs and grasses in the Wyoming roadways in the summer or early fall, before we mow the roadways.
“The Wyoming coal mines still operating are planting native species in their reclamation projects under the WYDEQ-LQ Division.
“Kochia tumbleweeds are so large that they can present a high wind hazard to motorists. Kochia has become resistant to the triazines [a broad spectrum, Group 5 herbicide. Refer to the chapter on Herbicides and Pesticides]. We used to use triazines but we no longer use them due to the damage they did to some crops on alkaline soils. We had a similar problem with Dicamba and wind drift, and a lot of the Group 2 herbicides [ALS inhibitors]. A lot of herbicides have the same mode of action, which is why an invasive species will eventually become resistant not just to one herbicide, but a variety of herbicides in that Action Group.”
In 2017, Slade Franklin told me: “The USDA is not putting much emphasis on management of invasive plants, other than annual grasses. Most of the federal funding is for annual grasses (e.g., cheatgrass) and aquatic pest species (e.g., mussels). There is some state and federal funding for medusahead and Ventenata dubia, which are now posing problems in Wyoming. We are considering the management of both of these species as priorities in Wyoming. We have tried to align our medusahead and Ventenata dubia programs with the US Department of the Interior’s Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species, National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response program.”
Related Sections & Next Section: