02/28/2001 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 22 of 27 and other creatures regarded as vermin. 169 In short, the man -made food supply of the sort often provided by structures, especially barns or garbage dumps, is what sustains rats and other vermin. Thus, an ordinance aimed at limiting rats and other vermin should not be targeted at "weeds" but rather should prohibit the food mass -grown and openly stored on property. 3. Mosquitoes A third defense of local weed ordinances is the assumption that weed - covered areas provide a breeding place for mosquitoes. In fact, however, mosquitoes require standing water to breed. Even the fastest growing mosquitoes found in the upper Midwest need standing water for ten days to complete their life cycle. Since prairie and meadow areas tend to absorb water quickly, they are less likely than frequently watered lawns to contribute to the presence of mosquitoes. If mosquitoes are the problem, it is standing water and not weeds that should be prohibited.17° 4. Pollen A fourth justification for local weed laws is the belief that weeds produce pollen which contributes to the suffering of people with allergies. As with the other defenses of out -dated local weed laws, this is also mistaken. Herbaceous plants responsible for pollen allergens fall into two general types: (1) plants such as ragweeds which characterize environments subject to repeated disturbances such as erosion or cultivation, and (2) areas characterized by a permanent cover of non - indigenous turf and pasture grasses such as bluegrass, perennial rye, and timothy.17 t Traditional lawn and landscape maintenance procedures in urban and suburban areas of the United States, which are often the antithesis of natural landscaping and Land Ethic, are more likely to be a significant source of community health problems than landscapes most often cited for "weed" law violations 172 This issue was at the center of the litigation that led to the Fairfax County, Virginia "Weed Law" finding that the law was unconstitutional in 1976 in Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia v. Wills and Van Metre, Inc. 173 The decision was based in large measure on the testimony of Dr. Stanwyn Shetler, now the Assistant Director of the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institute. Dr. Shetler testified that wind -borne pollen may travel hundreds of miles so that a local weed ordinance has virtually no effect in reducing allergy causmg pollens. In his decision, Judge Richard J. Jamborsky found: Shetler's testimony [regarding pollen allergies and some other assumumptions about weeds] challenges and refutes some of the old notions about weeds and nuisances enunciated 73 years ago in City of St. Louis V. Galt. In the absence of a showing that its tracts are a health hazard, the defendant should be permitted to maintain the meadows.174 Similarly, in New Berlin V. Hagar,175 Judge Gramling found that a city's weed http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01