§ 8101. Findings and purposes

Legislative history

Reconstructed from this section’s Code source credit and amendment notes, resolved against the local Statutes at Large. Editorial notes are evidence, not the law that made the change.

1. 2003

   Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003

   Pub. L. 108–16 § 2 · 117 Stat. 621

   Enacted · 16 U.S.C. § 8101

   Pub. L. 108–16, § 2, Apr. 23, 2003, 117 Stat. 621

   Source evidence

   Code source credit
   Pub. L. 108–16, § 2, Apr. 23, 2003, 117 Stat. 621

   Enacted provision · exact public law section
   SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. (a) Findings.— The Congress finds the following: (1) Wetlands and tidal marshes of the Chesapeake Bay and in Louisiana provide significant cultural, economic, and ecological benefits to the Nation. (2) The South American nutria (Myocastor coypus) is directly contributing to substantial marsh loss in Maryland and Louisiana on Federal, State, and private land. (3) 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. (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 Act is to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to the State of Maryland and the State of Louisiana for a program to implement measures to eradicate or control nutria and restore marshland damaged by nutria.

2. 2020

   Pub. L. 116–186 § 1(1)(A)(i) · 134 Stat. 901

   Substituted · 16 U.S.C. § 8101(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”

   Source evidence

   Code amendment note
   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”.

   Enacted provision · exact public law section
   (i) in paragraph (1), by striking “Wetlands and tidal marshes of the Chesapeake Bay and in Louisiana” and inserting “Wetlands, tidal marshes, and agricultural lands”;

3. 2020

   Pub. L. 116–186 § 1(1)(A)(ii) · 134 Stat. 901

   Struck · 16 U.S.C. § 8101(a)(2)

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

   Source evidence

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

   Enacted provision · exact public law section
   (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking “in Maryland and Louisiana”; and

4. 2020

   Pub. L. 116–186 § 1(1)(A)(iii) · 134 Stat. 901

   Amended · 16 U.S.C. § 8101(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.”

   Source evidence

   Code amendment note
   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.”

   Enacted provision · exact public law section
   (iii) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows: “(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.” ; and

5. 2020

   Pub. L. 116–186 § 1(1)(B) · 134 Stat. 901

   Substituted · 16 U.S.C. § 8101(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”

   Source evidence

   Code amendment note
   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”.

   Enacted provision · exact public law section
   (B) in subsection (b), by striking “the State of Maryland and the State of Louisiana” and inserting “any State that has demonstrated the need”; and

5 of 5 references resolved to an enrolled provision