Back to Wyoming
Wyoming2011Enacted

HB0015

Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act Updates

Last scannedOct 19, 2026, 2:19 AM

In one sentence

This law updates how Wyoming manages weeds and pests by changing definitions, allowing emergency actions, and giving local boards more power to buy property and share costs with landowners.

What it does

  • Changes the definition of 'control' to include prevention, identification, and mitigation, not just limiting infestations.
  • Creates a process for emergency declarations to allow immediate control of weeds or pests statewide or in a county.
  • Allows district boards to buy and sell real property, personal property, and equipment for their programs.
  • Increases the required surety bond for district board treasurers from $3,000 to $50,000.
  • Raises the criminal fine for violating the act from $100 to $750.
  • Requires cities and towns to send an annual report to the district board about their weed and pest control work.

Who it affects

  • District boards of directors and their treasurers.
  • Landowners, including owners and lessees of state, municipal, or private land.
  • Cities and towns that participate in weed and pest control programs.
  • The Wyoming weed and pest council and the director of the department.

Limits and unknowns

  • The source text is a working draft with amendments, so specific final wording may differ slightly from the initial proposal.
  • The bill does not specify the exact criteria the council uses to determine if a species is detrimental to the state's welfare beyond the listed examples.
  • The text does not detail the specific process for how the emergency declaration is formally approved by the council and board.

Plain language

Terms to know

Designated noxious weed
A plant species on the official list that is harmful to the state's health or welfare, such as by invading native plants or harming livestock.
Emergency declaration
A temporary addition of a weed or pest to the official list to allow for immediate control actions, lasting up to one year.
Cost sharing
A method where the district board and the landowner split the cost of pesticides and other control methods.
Surety bond
A financial guarantee required of the district board treasurer to ensure funds are handled correctly.

Official record

Sources

Source checked
Read the official summary

Bill No.: <billno> Drafter: <drafterinit> Bill No.: HB0015 Drafter: MRW LSO No.: 11LSO-0040 Effective Date: 7/1/2011 Enrolled Act No.: HEA0016 Chapter No.: 37 Prime Sponsor: Joint Agriculture, State and Public Lands and Water Resources Interim Committee Catch Title: Weed and pest control. Subject: Modifies the Weed and Pest Control Act. Summary/Major Elements: Amends definitions for the Weed and Pest Control Act. Expands the definition of control" under the Act from "limiting" weed and pest infestation to now include prevention, mitigation, identification, multiple integrated management practices, regulation and other actions. Expands the definitions for designated noxious weed and pest" to include any weed or pest that is detrimental to the general health or welfare of the state based on listed criteria. Creates a process for emergency declaration of a weed or pest to allow for immediate control either statewide or in a county until formal action by the council and board. Increases the amount of the surety bond required by the treasurers of the boards. Expands the duties and powers of the district board to include the ability to buy and sell property necessary to carry out district programs and allows cost sharing by the board with landowners for pesticides and other integrated management practices for the control of noxious weeds and pests. Eliminates the provision allowing inspectors certified as of February 10, 1973 to automatically be deemed certified district supervisors without further action by the board. Increases the amount associated with violation of the act from one-hundred dollars ($100.00) to seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750.00). Requires city or town to annually report to the district board on designated and declared weed and pest work within the city or town.

Public statements

Why lawmakers voted

Last checked Aug 7, 9:18 PM

Voted Yes

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because retaining the current definition supports valuable regulations like certified weed-free hay and helps demonstrate compliance with EPA integrated pest management requirements.

Public statementFloor statement at 36:12 Watch the statement
Voted Yes

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because current statutes are too limited and new definitions including integrated management practices are necessary for modern weed control.

Public statementFloor statement at 41:14 Watch the statement
Voted Yes

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because landowners are already effectively using these control methods and codifying them in statute supports existing successful practices.

Public statementFloor statement at 44:14 Watch the statement
Voted No

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the amendment because the current definition is already broad enough and adding specific examples might inadvertently exclude other necessary actions.

Public statementFloor statement at 45:15 Watch the statement
Voted No

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the amendment because removing 'indirect' clarifies the law by limiting it to definable direct effects rather than vague indirect consequences.

Public statementFloor statement at 49:19 Watch the statement
Voted No

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the amendment because the term 'indirect effect' is too vague and could be interpreted to include subjective dislikes rather than actual impacts.

Public statementFloor statement at 50:04 Watch the statement
Voted No

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the amendment because removing 'indirect' prevents an overly broad definition that lacks a clear meaning on the floor.

Public statementFloor statement at 52:03 Watch the statement

If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.

Wyoming roll calls

Recorded votes

5 roll calls

H Did Concur 53-6-1-0-02011-02-14 · House53 yes 6 no
S Passed 3rd Reading 29-0-1-0-02011-02-11 · Senate29 yes 0 no
S05 Recommended Amend and Do Pass 5-0-0-0-02011-02-02 · Senate5 yes 0 no
H Passed 3rd Reading 44-13-3-0-02011-01-21 · House44 yes 13 no
H05 Recommended Amend and Do Pass 9-0-0-0-02011-01-18 · House9 yes 0 no

Official activity

Bill history

  1. Assigned Chapter NumberLSO
  2. Governor Signed HEA0016Governor
  3. S President Signed HEA No. 0016Senate
  4. H Speaker Signed HEA No. 0016House
  5. Assigned Number HEA0016LSO
  6. H Did ConcurHouse
  7. H Received for ConcurrenceHouse
  8. S Passed 3rd ReadingSenate
  9. Amendment AdoptedSenate
  10. S Laid Back Without PrejudiceSenate
  11. Amendment AdoptedSenate
  12. S Passed 2nd ReadingSenate
  13. Amendment AdoptedSenate
  14. S Passed CoWSenate
  15. S Amendments AdoptedSenate
  16. Amendment AdoptedSenate
  17. S Placed on General FileSenate
  18. S05 Recommended Amend and Do PassSenate
  19. S Introduced and Referred to S05Senate
  20. S Received for IntroductionSenate

Changes

Amendments

8 stored

HB0015H3001

Failed 3rd reading by SHEPPERSON

HB0015HW001

Adopted Committee of the Whole by ZWONITZ,DN

HB0015HS001

Adopted Standing Committee by H05

HB0015S2001

Adopted 2nd reading by HICKS

HB0015S3001

Adopted 3rd reading by ROTHFUSS

HB0015S3002

Withdrawn 3rd reading by SCOTT

HB0015S3003

Adopted 3rd reading by SCOTT

HB0015SS001

Adopted Standing Committee by BEBOUT