US Code

Public Law 119-83 (04/13/2026)

16 U.S.C. § 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)
Public Law 105–322 The nutria eradication and control pilot program authorized by 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, § 2117 Stat. 621 Pub. L. 116–186, § 1(1)134 Stat. 901 (, , ; , , .)

Editorial Notes

References in Text

Public Law 105–322Pub. L. 105–322112 Stat. 3027 , referred to in subsec. (a)(4), is , , , which is not classified to the Code.

Pub. L. 108–16117 Stat. 621 This chapter, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original “this Act”, meaning , , , 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

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

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

Pub. L. 116–186, § 1(1)(A)(iii)Subsec. (a)(3). , 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.”

Pub. L. 116–186, § 1(1)(B)Subsec. (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, § 1117 Stat. 621

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