HB109 revises Virginia’s laws governing noxious weeds under the Board of Agriculture and Consumer Services. It updates the statutory definition of “noxious weed” to exclude plants when in-state production is commercially viable or when the plant is commercially propagated in Virginia, and it clarifies related terms such as “quarantine,” “regulated article,” and “permit.” The bill also requires the Board, before designating a plant as noxious, to review a scientific risk assessment from an advisory committee that must consider harm to crops, waters, desirable plants, livestock, property, public health, the environment, and the economy, as well as the plant’s current and potential commercial viability in Virginia and the economic impact on affected industries.
The bill further establishes phase-out periods for plants already commercially propagated in Virginia once they are designated noxious weeds: two years for grasses, forbs, and vines; four years for shrubs; and seven years for trees. It also authorizes the Board to establish statewide quarantines, regulate movement of noxious weeds and regulated articles, and require permits or certificates for movement from regulated areas. In addition, the Board must adopt regulations requiring tradespersons who propose or install plants to notify property owners in writing when those plants appear on the state’s invasive plant list.
HB109 also directs the Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services to conduct a broader review of the Board’s and Commissioner’s authority over noxious weed control. That review must address the role and structure of the Noxious Weeds Advisory Committee, the process for adding or omitting plant species and cultivars from the Virginia Administrative Code list, and the resources needed to implement the regulations. The Commissioner must report findings and recommendations to the relevant House and Senate committee chairs by November 1, 2026.
The bill’s impact is to make the noxious weed designation process more structured and economically informed, while also creating a clearer pathway for plants that are commercially viable or already propagated in Virginia to avoid or transition out of noxious weed status. It also strengthens regulatory tools for quarantine, movement control, and consumer notification, and it may affect growers, landscapers, plant installers, agricultural producers, and other businesses dealing in regulated plant material.
The overall sentiment appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial. The bill advanced through subcommittee, full committee, and both chambers with unanimous or near-unanimous votes, and it ultimately passed the House and Senate with only minimal opposition in the House. The main point of policy tension reflected in the text is the balance between invasive-species control and protection of commercially viable Virginia plant industries, especially where a plant may be ecologically problematic but still economically important or widely propagated in-state.
HB109 amends §§ 3.2-800 and 3.2-802 of the Code of Virginia to change how noxious weeds are defined and regulated, adding a commercial-viability exception and requiring a scientific and economic review before a plant is designated noxious. It expands the Board’s regulatory authority over quarantines, permits, certificates, and movement restrictions, and it imposes new notification requirements on plant tradespersons. The bill also requires a legislative/regulatory review by the Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services and a report to the General Assembly, affecting the Department’s implementation of the noxious weed program and related administrative regulations.
The bill appears to have been received positively throughout the legislative process. It moved out of subcommittee and committee without dissent, passed the House overwhelmingly with only two nays, and passed the Senate unanimously. The voting pattern suggests broad agreement with the bill’s approach to balancing invasive-species control, scientific review, and commercial considerations.
There is little evidence of major controversy in the available record, but the bill’s central policy tradeoff is between environmental/agricultural protection and commercial viability. Supporters appear to favor a more evidence-based designation process that accounts for economic impacts and existing in-state propagation, while any potential critics would likely be concerned that the commercial-viability exception could make it harder to list or phase out plants that are harmful to ecosystems, crops, or public health. The required review of the advisory committee, regulatory process, and omitted cultivars also suggests some concern about transparency and consistency in how species are added to or excluded from the noxious weed list.