In February, Congress approved the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, a humungous bill meant to rescue our tanking economy
with $787 billion in government spending. From that sum, $420 million
was channeled toward upgrading 43 ports of entry. And by March,
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano had announced that nearly
half—$199 million—would find its way to bustling little
Nogales, on the Arizona-Mexico border south of Tucson.

Subsequent charges of favoritism were not dampened by the fact that,
prior to her current gig, Napolitano was Arizona’s governor. The
secretary, however, has denied these charges.

Still, even in the shadow of business as usual, small controversies
can sizzle. Sometimes, they even offer precious glimpses into how the
sausage gets made. Such an opportunity was recently brought to our
attention by a faithful reader with a bit of inside information
regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The USDA has about 10 staffers in Nogales who identify, analyze and
sometimes quarantine agricultural products entering the country.
Currently, the agency pays $130,000 to lease two properties in Nogales
for its labs and plant inspection tasks.

But when the new port is built, staffers will relocate
there—at an annual cost of $837,000. That’s a major rent hike, in
a town filled with sufficient warehouses.

So what gives? According to some critics, the push for consolidating
services at the port comes from the Fresh Produce Association of the
Americas, a powerful, Nogales-based trade group representing 125
produce dealers, brokers and distributors who import Mexican fruits and
vegetables. Big money is at stake: In Nogales, produce has grown into a
$2 billion industry.

It’s unclear how much arm-twisting went into moving the USDA
operation to the port, which would theoretically speed the processing
of northbound shipments by having all government inspectors under one
roof. But association representatives did travel to Washington, D.C.,
in September, says J.B. Manson, a produce broker who also chairs the
Greater Nogales and Santa Cruz County Port Authority, a nonprofit group
of business and local government leaders who lobby for port
improvements.

While Manson denies that the USDA is relocating under pressure from
his industry, he’s hardly unhappy with the prospect. “As a customs
broker, I would think that’s beneficial to have everybody under one
location,” he says. “Why? Because you want clearance through all
federal agencies at one time.”

Jessica Wasserman is a Washington, D.C.-based lobbyist for the Fresh
Produce Association. She also dismisses claims that the group put on
pressure for the USDA move. The association “has been working on (the
Mariposa project) since way before the stimulus package,” she says.
“They’ve been working on it for years.”

But to Lee Maril, the pricey USDA plan bears all the signs of pure
pork. Maril is a sociology professor at East Carolina University in
Greenville, N.C., who tracks border spending and security issues. He
says much of the communication within modern ports is done by
telephone, which means everyone doesn’t necessarily need to work side
by side. “It’s hard to believe that the USDA couldn’t continue with
that. So taxpayers would want to know whether it’s worth $700,000 for
them to be at the port. That’s about $70,000 per employee. And they’re
still going to phone each other, even in the same building.”

Still, the pending arrangement doesn’t surprise him. “That’s the
history of (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) and Homeland Security
in general,” Maril says. “They’ve wasted an awful lot of money.”

But government officials defend the USDA move, saying that current
Nogales facilities are short on space and other modern
accoutrements.

The new port is targeted for completion in 2013. Then the “landlord”
will be the General Services Administration, a federal agency that
manages government properties, among other things. In an e-mail to the
Tucson Weekly, GSA spokeswoman Gene Gibson claims that the
change will actually reduce costs.

“While it is true that USDA will be renting the new space at
Mariposa for approximately $1 million per year,” Gibson writes, “it is
important to note that the move to Mariposa will ultimately result in
cost savings due to co-location and shared services at the site.

“The new and expanded USDA space at the Mariposa Land Port of Entry
will include professional veterinary space with secondary holding
facilities, a bath and shower, processing facilities for inspection of
large and small specimens, a modern laboratory facility, and office
space. USDA absolutely needs upgraded and renovated space at this time
in any case, and the Mariposa move gives USDA the opportunity to take
possession of modern, up-to-date space, while improving efficiency and
security at the same time.”

USDA spokeswoman Andrea McNally argues that annual costs for port
space “will continue to decrease each year, because the figure includes
not only the rent but also the build-out costs, parking spaces for
government vehicles, dock space, janitorial and maintenance services,
and DHS security fees. So once the build-out costs are paid, the figure
will decline significantly, since it will only be for annual rent.”

McNally is unable to pinpoint exactly how significant that decline
will be. Regardless, she says the extra room available at Mariposa is a
must. “They need space to unload trucks, to quarantine any product
that’s in question, to keep that product separate from anything that
may have been cleared.”

Given all of those considerations, “the current location is
inadequate for meeting those needs and requirements.”

It’s unclear whether other agencies will be following suit and
moving into the expensive new facility—or even what they’re
paying for their current Nogales offices. For instance, 11 employees
with the Food and Drug Administration already at Mariposa will be
moving to the new building, says FDA spokesman Christopher Kelly.
They’ll be joined by five others currently located elsewhere in
Nogales, and an additional two employees. That raises the staff
total—including screeners—to 18.

But getting a handle on how many taxpayer dollars are going toward
current and future FDA leases isn’t so easy. Kelly refuses to provide
this basic information, instead advising us to file a formal Freedom of
Information Act request. Such requests can take weeks to fulfill.

So much for government transparency.

This article appears in Oct 8-14, 2009.