Agriculture – Noxious Weeds – Palmer Amaranth
HB0949 would amend Maryland’s agriculture laws governing noxious weeds to create a specific enforcement process for Palmer amaranth, a listed noxious weed. Under the bill, if the Department of Agriculture inspects land and finds Palmer amaranth, it must issue an order to the landowner requiring eradication within two weeks. The Department would then have to re-inspect the property every two weeks until it determines the weed has been eradicated.
The bill also adds a separate penalty structure for violations of an order issued for Palmer amaranth. A person who fails to comply would be subject to administrative penalties of $500 for a first violation, $1,000 for a second, and $2,000 for a third or subsequent violation. Existing law already requires landowners and managers to eradicate or control noxious weeds, but this bill would make Palmer amaranth subject to a more specific and accelerated enforcement regime. The bill was set to take effect October 1, 2026.
HB0949 would amend Sections 9-404 and 9-406 of the Agriculture Article to give the Department of Agriculture explicit authority and duties when Palmer amaranth is found on land. It would require a mandatory eradication order, a two-week compliance deadline, and recurring inspections until eradication is confirmed. It would also create a distinct administrative penalty schedule for noncompliance with such an order and direct collected penalties to the special fund used for noxious weed control and eradication. The bill would primarily affect landowners, public land managers, and the Department of Agriculture.
The available record shows no committee testimony, recorded votes, or floor debate, and the bill was ultimately withdrawn by the sponsor in the House. Based on the text alone, the bill appears aimed at strengthening weed-control enforcement rather than creating a broad policy change, suggesting a targeted agricultural management measure. Because there is no recorded discussion, there is no documented public sentiment in the provided materials beyond the sponsor’s decision to withdraw the bill.
The main potential point of contention is the bill’s mandatory and time-sensitive enforcement approach. Landowners and property managers could view the two-week eradication deadline and biweekly inspections as burdensome, especially if infestations are widespread or difficult to eliminate. By contrast, agricultural and environmental interests would likely support the bill’s stronger response to Palmer amaranth because of its reputation as an aggressive, hard-to-control invasive weed that can damage crops and spread quickly. The absence of committee transcripts means no specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided record.