02/28/2001 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 9 of 27 wildlife biologist, fought back. He brought in experts to refute the city's claims that his landscape was a health hazard.75 The testimony was convincing. Forest Stearns of the University of Wisconsin, demonstrated that the Norway rat does not inhabit or find food in a natural landscape. United States Forest Service fire expert, David Seaberg, testified that Dr. Hagar's prairie did not create a fire hazard. Professor Philip Whitford, a botanist from the University of Wisconsin, testified that a prairie fire, unlike a forest fire, does not create large and persistent embers that can be carried by the wind. David Kopitzke, a Milwaukee County Public Museum botanist, established that wildflowers and natural landscapes do not create a pollen problem. Exotic plants, like Kentucky Bluegrass, and trees, like oaks, create more allergenic pollen than a native prairie. After three months of deliberation, on April 21, 1976, Judge William Gramling issued his decision.76 The Court found nothing in the testimony to justify the fire and pollen hazard claims that the city cited to support the weed ordinance. He found that natural landscaping did not negatively affect neighbor property values. The court stuck down the ordinance as violative of the Equal Protection Clause because the factual underpinning for the law was too thin to be rational.77 Following his victory, Mr. Hagar continued his natural landscaping and New Berlin has not bothered any natural landscapers since.78 4. Montgomery County, Maryland v. Stewart79 Walter Stewart, a scientist, and his wife, Nancy Stewart, a Justice Department attorney, borrowed a page from Mr. Hagar's playbook and successfully repelled efforts by neighbors and Montgomery County, Maryland officials to enforce a weed law against their natural landscape. The Stewarts allowed a six -acre natural landscape to grow around their suburban home. In 1987, the Stewarts received a citation for violating the local weed ordinance. In response, they compiled a detailed scientific and legal case arguing that their natural landscape did not pose a danger to the safety or health of the Montgomery County residents. The county argued that overgrown yards harbored rats and snakes and were harmful to people with respiratory problems. Faced with the Stewarts' evidence, however, the county elected to drop the charges.80 Because of the Stewart's efforts, Montgomery County changed its weed law to allow meadows as long as there is a 15 -foot buffer maintained at 12 inches or less, and species on a noxious weed list, such as poison ivy, are controlled.81 5. Little Rock, Arkansas v. Allison82 In the South, Lyndae Allison maintains a natural landscape that the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission considers a natural wildlife area. Her half acre yard is mostly hardwood forest, with trumpet vines and mulberry trees. The City of Little Rock had a different view. Little Rock cited her for violating Article 20 -2 of the http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01