Cost-Share Criteria for APHIS Emergency Programs
APHIS has published a proposed rule that would codify a standardized cost-sharing formula for animal disease and plant pest and disease emergency eradication programs that are conducted cooperatively with states. Unfortunately, expanding world trade and the threat of bio-terrorism have increased the risk of destructive pests and diseases being introduced into the United States. The USDA is the federal agency statutorily charged with preventing the introduction, spread and establishment of plant pests and diseases, noxious weeds and pests and diseases of livestock in the United States. States are not federally mandated to partner with USDA in this endeavor yet have historically done so with great success. Developing a plan on how the USDA should respond to emergencies is not without merit. In fact, NASDA's Animal Health Safeguarding Review and the Safeguarding American Plant Resources Review conducted by the National Plant Board contain recommendations that would facilitate the kind of out year planning envisioned in the proposed rule.
Emergency programs relating to animal and plant health by their very nature, however, do not accommodate a "one size fits all" approach. While some suggest a cost-share formula would yield savings to the Federal Government in future years, it will actually result in quite the opposite for states, who are already bearing significant costs associated with plant and animal pest and diseases that are not detected at the border.
NASDA urges USDA to withdraw the proposed rule and work with states toward the development of a joint system for the early detection and eradication of plant and animal pests and diseases. NASDA's Animal Health Safeguarding Review and the Safeguarding American Plant Resources Review would provide a sound footing for the development of a science-based rule that combines the unique abilities of each partner. NASDA discourages attempts to construct meaningful eradication programs around budgetary decisions.