Kathy makes a good point, that the cost of the change will be offset by savings down the line. But the actual act (H. R. 2381) makes it clear that the costs would be minimal and will be shared in any case:

(1) conduct or encourage integrated vegetation
management practices on roadsides and other trans-
portation rights-of-way, including reduced mowing;

(2) enhance the development of habitat for
pollinators through plantings of native forbs and
grasses;

(3) encourage leveraging through partnerships
and coordination with stakeholders in support of pol-
linators and plantings of native forbs and grasses,
such as environmental groups, research institutions,
other agencies, businesses, and community organiz-
tions; and

(4) conduct or facilitate research and dem-
onstration projects on the economic and environ-
mental benefits and best practices for integrated
vegetation management, reduced mowing, and plant
ings of native forbs and grasses for pollinator habitat.

In other words, the mere cessation of mowing would bring about a bulk of the change. Plantings would serve to *enhance* the process. Local groups could opt to fund the plantings, much as local groups already sponsor sections of highways. 

I would think any local organization would be thrilled to see "their" section of highway in full bloom and abuzz with pollinators. Such an idea could spill over onto local town roads, and utility right of ways. 

As Kathy points out, it would be very hard to impose building or vehicle restrictions on a "I do it my way" public, but to use public lands for the enhancement of pollinator habitat should be easy as letting the garden go. 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm