16 U.S. Code § 8101 - Findings and purposes

(a) Findings

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Wetlands, tidal marshes, and agricultural lands provide significant cultural, economic, and ecological benefits to the Nation.

(2) The South American nutria (Myocastor coypus) is directly contributing to substantial marsh loss on Federal, State, and private land.

(3) Traditional harvest methods to control or eradicate nutria have failed. Consequently, marsh loss, loss of public and private wetlands, and loss of agricultural lands are accelerating.

(4) The nutria eradication and control pilot program authorized by Public Law 105–322 is to develop new and effective methods for eradication of nutria.

(b) Purpose

The purpose of this chapter is to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to any State that has demonstrated the need for a program to implement measures to eradicate or control nutria and restore marshland damaged by nutria.

(Pub. L. 108–16, § 2, Apr. 23, 2003, 117 Stat. 621; Pub. L. 116–186, § 1(1), Oct. 30, 2020, 134 Stat. 901.)

Editorial Notes

References in Text

Public Law 105–322, referred to in subsec. (a)(4), is Pub. L. 105–322, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 3027, which is not classified to the Code.

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 108–16, Apr. 23, 2003, 117 Stat. 621, known as the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note below and Tables.

Amendments

2020—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 116–186, § 1(1)(A)(i), substituted “Wetlands, tidal marshes, and agricultural lands” for “Wetlands and tidal marshes of the Chesapeake Bay and in Louisiana”.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 116–186, § 1(1)(A)(ii), struck out “in Maryland and Louisiana” after “substantial marsh loss”.

Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 116–186, § 1(1)(A)(iii), amended par. (3) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (3) read as follows: “Traditional harvest methods to control or eradicate nutria have failed in Maryland and have had limited success in the eradication of nutria in Louisiana. Consequently, marsh loss is accelerating.”

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 116–186, § 1(1)(B), substituted “any State that has demonstrated the need” for “the State of Maryland and the State of Louisiana”.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Short Title

Pub. L. 108–16, § 1, Apr. 23, 2003, 117 Stat. 621, provided that:

“This Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the ‘Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003’.”