A performance audit of the Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture, the Office of the State Chemist [and] the Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Program

              STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT
0 f
THE ARIZONA COMMISSION OF AGRICULTURE
AND HORTICULTURE
THE OFFICE OF THE STATE CHEMIST
THE FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STANDARDIZATION
PROGRAM
SEPTEMBER 1979
PLANT QUARANTINE INSPECTION STATIONS
SHOULD BE CONTINUED, BUT PROCEDURES
SHOULD BE MODIFIED.
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 79- 12
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
SUITE 600
112 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE AUDITOR GENERAL
PHOENIX, ARIZONA ' 85004
255- 4385
September 14, 1979
SUITE 820
33 NORTH STONE AVENUE
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701
882- 5465
a
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
Members of the Arizona Legislature
Members of the Arizona Commission of Agriculture
and Horticulture
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of:
the Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture, the Office of the S t a t e
Chemist, and the Arizona F r u i t and Vegetable Standardization Program. This
report is in response to a September 19, 1978, resolution of the J o i n t Legisla-t
i v e Budget Committee and a January 18, 1979, resolution of the J o i n t Legislative
@ Oversight Committee.
As indicated by the t i t l e , t h i s report contains the r e s u l t s of separate a u d i t s of
three of the four programs administered by the f i v e member Arizona Commission of
Agriculture and Horticulture:
( 1) The program directed by the S t a t e Entomologist ( which is a l s o
commonly referred to as the Arizona Commission of Agriculture
and Horticulture)
( 2) The Office of the S t a t e Chemist, and
( 3) The Arizona F r u i t and Vegetable Standardization Program
The fourth program, the Board of Pesticide Control, is scheduled by law for review
during a l a t e r sunset review cycle.
The preliminaries of each r e p o r t , i n c l u d i n g ' t h e summaries, are found on blue pages,
Responses from the d i r e c t o r s of the programs audited a r e found on yellow pages
I, preceding the appendices of each report.
My s t a f f and I w i l l be happy to meet with the appropriate l e g i s l a t i v e committees,
individual l e g i s l a t o r s or other s t a t e o f f i c i a l s t o discuss or c l a r i f y any i t e m s in
t h i s report or to f a c i l i t a t e the implementation of the recommendations.
rn Respectfully submitted,
D s t a f f :
Gerald Silva
William Thornson
Steve Thacker
J e r r y M i l l s
Mary Lynn
~ o u ~ l Ra. s N orton
Auditor General
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF
THE ARIZONA COMMISSION OF AGRICULTURE
AND HORTICULTURE
THE OFFICE OF THE STATE CHEMIST
THE FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STANDARDIZATION
PROGRAM
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 79- 12
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF
THE ARIZONA COMMISSION OF AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 79- 1 2a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
SUNSET FACTORS
FINDINGS
FINDING I
Plant quarantine inspection stations should be
continued, but procedures should be modified.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
FINDING I1
The State of Arizona could realize $ 220,000
annually in reduced costs and increased revenue
if Motor Vehicle Division inspectors were used
to perform truck inspections at five border
stations.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
FINDING 111
Fees should be charged to recover an additional
$ 72,000 in unrecovered costs for nursery, apiary
and seed inspections.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
FINDING IV
Greater actions and stronger penalties are
needed in the enforcement of the Native Plant
and State Seed laws.
Page
1
2
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
FINDING V
Page
50
Statutory changes are needed t o e l i m i n a t e o b s o l e t e
and unnecessary requirements and duplication of
e f f o r t .
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - The consulting entomologists' report on the
need f o r the inspection s t a t i o n s and resumes
d e t a i l i n g the consultants' q u a l i f i c a t i o n s
APPENDIX B - Results o f the Office of the Auditor General's
survey of motorists passing through the
inspection s t a t i o n s
APPENDIX C - The Office o f the Auditor General's study of
t h e d e t e r r e n t f a c t o r s of the border inspection
s t a t i o n s
APPENDIX D - Arizona Legislative Council memo dated March 28,
1979
APPENDIX E - Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s Sections 3- 551 through
3- 555
APPENDIX F - Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s Sections 3- 471
through 3- 476 and Section 3- 486
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
ILLUSTRATION 1 - A map showing the locations of the border
inspection stations
TABLE 1 -
TABLE 2 -
TABLE 3 -
TABLE 4 -
TABLE 5 -
TABLE 6 -
TABLE 7 -
TABLE 8 -
TABLE 9 -
TABLE 10 -
TABLE 11 -
LIST OF TABLES
Page
11
Commission expenditures for fiscal years 1977- 78,
1978- 79 and 1979- 80 3
Traffic inspected and inspection procedures
used at the ten inspection stations
Lots of fruits and plants intercepted, deterred
and not intercepted by the stations 14
A comparison of the number of interceptions
versus the type of inspection method used for
fiscal years 1975- 76, 1976- 77 and 1977- 78 16
Types of truck inspections performed by Arizona
Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture
inspectors
A comparison of the Arizona Commission of
Agriculture and Horticulture's ( ACAH) and the
Motor Vehicle Division's ( MVD) staffing versus
workload requirements
A comparison of Motor Vehicle Division staffing
versus the combined workload ( in FTEts) of the
Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture
and the Motor Vehicle Division, by shift and by
station
Survey of state departments of agriculture -
Nursery inspections
Survey of state departments of agriculture -
Apiary inspections
Funding sources for state Seed Control Programs
Summary of penalties imposed for convictions of
violations of the Native Plant Law from 1968
through 1978
Page
TABLE 12 - Summary, by company, of t11e nurncnr or" seel
samples taken, the number of " Stop- Salen
o r d e r s i s s u e d and the proportion of
" Stop- Sale" o r d e r s i s s u e d t o the number of
seed samples taken during 1977 and 1978
TABLE 13 - Summary of s t a t e s t h a t publish the names of
companies t h a t v i o l a t e seed laws, the manner
i n which v i o l a t i o n s a r e publicized, and
o f f i c i a l responses regarding the e f f e c t
publicizing companies has on t h e i r seed
control program
SUMMARY
The first Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture was established in
1912 to protect Arizona's agricultural industry by 1) inspecting orchards,
nurseries and nursery stock for insect pests, and 2) establishing and
enforcing quarantines against possible sources of insect pests. The Commission
was given power to appoint a State Entomologist and other employees to carry
out its programs. These programs directed by the State Entomologist are also
commonly referred to as the Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture
( Commission), and were the subject of this audit.
The Commission has a staff of 168 employees and a budget of $ 3,416,500 for
fiscal year 1979- 80.
Our review of the Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture revealed
the plant quarantine program and its inspection stations should be continued.
However, we recommend the Commission modify the inspection procedures used for
passenger vehicles to increase effectiveness and reduce motorist inconve-nience.
( page 10)
The State of Arizona could realize $ 220,000 annually in reduced costs and
increased revenue if Motor Vehicle Division inspectors were used to perform
truck inspections at five border stations. ( page 20)
The Commission could annually recover an additional $ 72,000 in costs for
nursery, seed and apiary programs if it charged fees as is done by other
states. ( page 30)
The Commission needs to take stronger actions, and greater statutory authority
is needed, if the Commission is to effectively enforce the Native Plant and
State Seed laws. ( page 41)
Statutory changes are needed to eliminate unnecessary and obsolete laws, and to
eliminate duplication of effort in the Date Standardization program. ( page 50)
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In response to a September 19, 1978, resolution of the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee and a January 18, 1979, resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight
Committee, the Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit
of the Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture. This performance
audit was conducted as a part of the sunset review set forth in ARS 41- 2351
through ARS 41- 2374.
In 1909 the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona created a three
member commission known as the Arizona Horticultural Commission. The
Commission was given power to appoint an Entomologist and quarantine inspectors
to 1) inspect orchards, nurseries and nursery stock for insect pests, and 2)
inspect incoming shipments of nursery stock and quarantine against dangerous
sources of supply. In May 1912, following statehood, the territorial Arizona
Horticultural Commission became the Arizona Commission of Agriculture and
Horticulture.
The Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture remained a three member
commission supervising the activities of the State Entomologist and his
employees until 1977. In 1977, legislation was passed which enlarged the
number of commission members from three to five, and placed the Fruit and
Vegetable Standardization program under the direction of the Commission. The
following year additional legislation was also passed placing the Office of the
State Chemist and the Board of Pesticide Control under the direction of the
Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture.
This sunset audit addresses the program directed by the State Entomologist; a
program which is also commonly referred to as the Arizona Commission of
Agriculture and Horticulture, or the Commission.
The Office of the State Chemist and the Fruit and Vegetable Standardization
program have been reviewed in separate performance audits included in this
report. The Board of Pesticide Control is scheduled for separate sunset review
during the 1981- 83 review cycle.
The programs conducted by the S t a t e Entomologist preceded Arizona statehood.
The first Entomologist was appointed e f f e c t i v e September 1, 1909 and was
responsible, i n collaboration with the Commission, f o r appointing f i v e quaran-t
i n e inspectors. The l e g i s l a t i v e appropriation of $ 3,000 for f i s c a l year 1909-
10 was said t o have ' I.. . barely s u f f i c e d , with economy, for the year's
operations." Seventy years l a t e r i n f i s c a l year 1979- 80, the program under the
S t a t e Entomologist has grown from f i v e employees t o 168 employees. The
o r i g i n a l f i s c a l year 1909- 10 appropriation of $ 3,000 has increased to
$ 3,416,500 i n f i s c a l year 1979- 80. Table 1 shows the expenditures of the
Commission for f i s c a l years 1977- 78, 1978- 79 and 1979- 80.
TABLE 1
Expenditures
COMMISSION EXPENDITURES* FOR FISCAL
YEARS 1977- 78, 1978- 79 AND 1979- 80
Personal services
Employee r e l a t e d expenses
Professional and outside services
I n s t a t e t r a v e l
Out of s t a t e t r a v e l
Other operating expenditures
Equipment
Total
Fiscal Year
1977- 78 1978- 79 1979- 80
( Actual) ( Actual) ( Estimate)
Despite the growth of the Commission, the goals of the program are e s s e n t i a l l y
unchanged from those of the f i r s t Commission; t o protect Arizona's a g r i c u l t u r a l
industry by enforcing quarantine regulations and conducting p e s t d e t e c t i o n and
abatement functions.
In addition, today's Commission also has the added r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of
enforcing the S t a t e Seed, Hay Broker, Native Plant and Date Standardization
laws.
This report contains the r e s u l t s of our audit of the Commission's functions and
includes :
( a ) r e s u l t s of the review of the nine sunset f a c t o r s t o aid i n the
process of determining whether the Arizona Commission of Agriculture
and Horticulture should be continued or terminated,
( b) a finding t h a t t h e p l a n t quarantine program and its inspection
s t a t i o n s are needed, but procedures should be modified t o increase
effectiveness and reduce motorist inconvenience,
( c) a finding t h a t $ 220,000 could be realized annually i n reduced costs
and increased revenue i f the Motor Vehicle Division performs truck
inspections for the Commission,
( d) a finding t h a t the Commission could recover an additional $ 72,000 i n
costs for nursery, seed and apiary programs i f it charged fees as is
done by other s t a t e s ,
( e) a finding t h a t greater Commission action and stronger penalties are
needed t o e f f e c t i v e l y enforce the Native Plant and S t a t e Seed laws,
and
( f ) a finding t h a t s t a t u t o r y changes a r e needed t o e l i m i n a t e o b s o l e t e and
duplicative laws.
The Office of the Auditor General expresses its g r a t i t u d e t o the S t a t e
Entomologist and the employees of the Arizona Commission o f Agriculture and
Horticulture f o r t h e i r cooperation, assistance and consideration during the
course of the audit.
SUNSET FACTORS
In accordance with ARS 41- 2351 through ARS 41- 2374, nine factors were reviewed
to aid in the process of determining whether the Arizona Commission of
Agriculture and Horticulture should be continued or terminated.
SUNSET FACTOR: OBJECTIVE AND
PURPOSE IN ESTABLISHING THE
COMMISSION
The original purpose in establishing the first Commission in 1909 was to
protect Arizona agriculture by 1) inspecting orchards, nurseries and nursery
stock for insect pests, and 2) inspecting incoming shipments of nursery stock
and establishing quarantines against dangerous sources of supply. Today, this
remains the primary objective of the Arizona Commission of Agriculture and
Horticulture. However, the Commission has been given the additional objectives
of protecting native plants, and protecting consumers in the areas of date
standardization and seed labelling.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE DEGREE TO
WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN
ABLE TO RESPOND TO THE NEEDS OF
THE PUBLIC AND THE EFFICIENCY WITH
WHICH IT HAS OPERATED
The Commission was established primarily to respond to the needs of one
particular segment of the public -- agriculture. Thus, its role in responding
to the public need is somewhat different than a department established to
protect the general public such as the Department of Insurance. Nevertheless,
the Commission does respond to the needs of the general public when
appropriate. For example, in 1978 when the number of complaints from home-owners
regarding aerial pesticide spraying exceeded the Board of Pesticide
Control's ability to investigate them, Commission employees assisted the Board
in investigating complaints.
A review o f t h e Commission's operations revealed t h a t the following opportu-n
i t i e s e x i s t t o improve t h e Commission's l e v e l of e f f i c i e n c y .
( a) Motor Vehicle Division ( MVD) employees can be used t o perform truck
i n s p e c t i o n s at f i v e s t a t i o n s thereby reducing s t a f f i n g by 13
p o s i t i o n s ( page 201, and
( b) Duplication i n t h e i n s p e c t i o n of dates can be eliminated by t r a n s -
f e r r i n g the Date S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n Program t o t h e Arizona F r u i t and
Vegetable S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n Program. ( page 51 )
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS OPERATED
WITHIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
Because a g r i c u l t u r a l crop production is a 700 m i l l i o n d o l l a r industry i n the
Arizona economy, an argument can be made t h a t t h e Commission's e f f o r t s t o
p r o t e c t and promote a g r i c u l t u r e is i n t h e general i n t e r e s t of a l l of Arizona.
Two Commission programs are, however, more s p e c i f i c a l l y within t h e public
i n t e r e s t . The Native Plant Program p r o t e c t s n a t i v e p l a n t s f o r the enjoyment
and b e n e f i t of a l l Arizona c i t i z e n s . The Date S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n Program p r o t e c t s
consumers of d a t e s a g a i n s t i n f e r i o r o r i n e d i b l e products.
Nevertheless, t h e Commission's f a i l u r e t o p u b l i c i z e v i o l a t i o n s of the S t a t e
Seed Law may not be i n the public i n t e r e s t . ( page 45)
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO
WHICH RULES AND REGULATIONS
PROMULGATED BY THE COMMISSION
ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
Commission r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s a r e reviewed by t h e Attorney General's Office
t o ensure t h a t they a r e c o n s i s t e n t with l e g i s l a t i v e mandate. We found t h i s
review has, on occasion, determined t h a t proposed r u l e s were not c o n s i s t e n t
with l e g i s l a t i v e mandate. I n t h e s e c a s e s the proposed r u l e s a r e e i t h e r revised
t o conform o r do not receive f i n a l approval from the Attorney General.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH
THE COMMISSION HAS ENCOURAGED INPUT
FROM THE PUBLIC BEFORE PROMULGATING
ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS AND THE
EXTENT TO WHICH IT HAS INFORMED THE
PUBLIC AS TO ITS ACTIONS AND THEIR
EXPECTED IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC
The Commission's e f f o r t s i n publicizing proposed r u l e s and public hearings
exceeds those of most other Arizona S t a t e agencies. A survey of S t a t e agencies
by the Office of the Auditor General revealed t h a t most agencies l i m i t t h e i r
publicizing of r u l e s t o f i l i n g the proposed r u l e with the Secretary o f S t a t e ,
and posting notices of the public hearings i n t h e i r building. In addition t o
those two actions the Commission also:
( a ) Notifies 35- 50 persons with a g r i c u l t u r a l i n t e r e s t s before a r u l e is
drafted t o obtain t h e i r input i n t h e d r a f t i n g o f the r u l e ,
( b) Prepares and issues 200 news releases publicizing the hearing on the
rule. These releases are issued to: employees, newspapers, t e l e -
vision and radio s t a t i o n s , and other p a r t i e s who have requested t h a t
they be retained on the mailing list.
( c ) Arranges for approximately 20 newspapers to publish b r i e f notices of
' hearings i n t h e i r public notice sections.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH
THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN ABLE TO
INVESTIGATE AND RESOLVE COMPLAINTS
THAT ARE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION
Unlike many of the regulatory boards and departments, the Arizona Commission of
Agriculture and Horticulture is not extensively involved i n i n v e s t i g a t i n g
complaints from the general public against members of an industry or
profession. The complaints the Commission does receive are usually directed
towards a s p e c i f i c policy or employee. The Commission reviews and responds t o
a l l of these complaints.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR ANY OTHER
APPLICABLE AGENCY OF STATE GOVERNMENT
HAS THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE ACTIONS
UNDER THE ENABLING LEGISLATION
ARS 3- 214, ARS 3- 215, ARS 3- 240, ARS 3- 476, ARS 3- 576, ARS 3- 806 and ARS 3- 907
a l l specify a c t s t h a t c o n s t i t u t e v i o l a t i o n s of the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n of the
Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture. County attorneys have the
authority t o prosecute violations under these s t a t u t e s . Nevertheless, members
of the Attorney General's Office have recommended additional l e g i s l a t i o n be
enacted with regard t o Native Plant Law violations because they believe county
attorneys may be r e l u c t a n t t o prosecute these violations. They recommend the
Commission be given c i v i l enforcement powers t o strengthen enforcement of t h i s
program. ( page 43)
In addition t o prosecution by the county attorneys, ARS 3- 475 provides the
Commission with authority t o seek injunctions through Superior courts against
persons v i o l a t i n g the Date Standardization Act.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH
THE COMMISSION HAS ADDRESSED DEFICIENCIES
I N THE ENABLING STATUTES WHICH PREVENT
I T FROM FULFILLING ITS STATUTORY MANDATE
Since the present S t a t e Entomologist took o f f i c e i n April 1977, the Commission
has sought one l e g i s l a t i v e change t o increase its effectiveness. In 1978, the
Commission successfully recommended a reduction i n t h e s e v e r i t y of the f i r s t
offense f o r Native Plant Law violations. This was done in hopes t h a t more
cooperation i n enforcement could be obtained from law o f f i c e r s throughout the
s t a t e .
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH
CHANGES ARE NECESSARY I N THE LAWS OF
THE COMMISSION TO ADEQUATELY COMPLY
WITH THE FACTORS LISTED I N THIS SUB-SECTION
Our review found the following s t a t u t o r y changes a r e needed for the Commission
t o more adequately comply with t h e f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n t h i s subsection:
( a ) Additional s t a t u t o r y authority is needed t o permit the Commission to
contract with the Motor Vehicle Division t o conduct truck inspec-tions
a t five border inspection s t a t i o n s . ( page 27)
( b) Additional s t a t u t o r y authority is needed t o permit the Commission t o
assess fees for nursery, apiary and seed inspections. ( page 30)
( c) Additional s t a t u t o r y authority is needed t o provide the Commission
with c i v i l enforcement powers needed t o strengthen enforcement of
the Native Plant Law. ( page 43)
( d) Present s t a t u t e s regarding the s a l e of c i t r u s f r u i t ( ARS 3- 551 e t
seq.) and the quarantine radius of infected a p i a r i e s ( ARS 3- 803. B)
are outdated and should be repealed. ( page 50)
( e) S t a t u t e s assigning the Date Standardization Program t o the
Commission ( ARS 3- 471 et seq.) should be revised t o a s s i g n t h e
program t o t h e F r u i t and Vegetable Standardization Program. ( page
51
FINDING I
PLANT QUARANTINE INSPECTION STATIONS SHOULD BE CONTINUED, BUT PROCEDURES
SHOULD BE MODIFIED.
The plant quarantine inspection s t a t i o n s operated by the Arizona Commission of
Agriculture and Horticulture are needed. However, the Commission should modify
the procedures used a t the s t a t i o n s t o strengthen t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the
program and reduce motorist inconvenience.
The Arizona Commission o f Agriculture and Horticulture operates ten plant
quarantine inspection s t a t i o n s along major highways entering the borders of
Arizona.* The function o f these ten s t a t i o n s is t o detect and prevent the
entry of a g r i c u l t u r a l pests t h a t are not a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d i n Arizona. In
addition, f i v e s t a t i o n s ( Cameron, Sanders, San Simon, Douglas, Solomon) also
perform a similar function on behalf of t h e S t a t e of California under a
contract with the California Department of Agriculture. Under the terms of
t h i s c o n t r a c t C a l i f o r n i a pays the Commission approximately $ 250,000 per year t o
help defray the costs of the inspection program.
The type of t r a f f i c inspected and the inspection methods used vary among the
t e n s t a t i o n s depending upon the Commission's assessment of the pest r i s k
involved.** Five s t a t i o n s inspect only truck t r a f f i c because of the low pest
r i s k from passenger vehicles traveling through these s t a t i o n s . Two s t a t i o n s
inspect a l l t r a f f i c ( trucks and passenger v e h i c l e s ) , but use " verbal
inspectionsv to determine whether passenger vehicles are carrying quarantined
materials. Three inspection s t a t i o n s inspect a l l t r a f f i c including opening the
trunks of passenger vehicles traveling from high pest r i s k areas. Table 2
summarizes the type of t r a f f i c inspected and the inspection procedures used a t
t h e t e n s t a t i o n s .
* I l l u s t r a t i o n 1 provides a map showing the location o f the ten s t a t i o n s . ** The Commission considers the following f a c t o r s i n assessing pest risk:
t h e o r i g i n and destination of the t r a f f i c , the types of materials
intercepted, and the amount of m a t e r i a l s i n t e r c e p t e d .
ILLUSTRATION 1
LOCATIONS OF THE
BORDEX INSPECTION STATIONS
TABLE 2
TRAFFIC INSPECTED AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES
USED AT THE TEN INSPECTION STATIONS
S t a t i o n
Cameron
Douglas
Ehrenberg
Kingman i/ 1
Kingman f2
Parker
Sanders
San Simon
Solomon
Y uma
T r a f f i c Inspected
A l l T r a f f i c
Trucks Only
A l l T r a f f i c
Trucks Only
Trucks Only
Trucks Only
A l l T r a f f i c
A l l T r a f f i c
Trucks Only
A l l T r a f f i c
Type of Auto Inspection
Open Trunks
Not Inspected
Verbal
Not Inspected
Not Inspected
Not Inspected
Open Trunks
Open Trunks
Not Inspected
Verbal
Source: Data provided by the Arizona Commission of Agriculture and
H o r t i c u l t u r e
The t e n i n s p e c t i o n s t a t i o n s have been a source of c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n t r o v e r s y and
l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e r e s t i n r e c e n t years. P a r t i c u l a r concern has been focused on
the need f o r and the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of i n s p e c t i o n of passenger v e h i c l e s . Using
the consulting s e r v i c e s of t h r e e n a t i o n a l l y recognized expert entomologists*
our Office reviewed the i n s p e c t i o n s t a t i o n s and determined:
( a) t h e p l a n t quarantine program ( i n c l u d i n g p r i v a t e v e h i c l e i n s p e c t i o n s )
is needed and should be continued,
( b) the present i n s p e c t i o n procedures ( p a r t i c u l a r l y v e r b a l i n s p e c t i o n s )
a r e weak and need strengthening, and
( c) a system of monitored voluntary compliance f o r passenger vehicle
i n s p e c t i o n s should be implemented t o 1 ) strengthen t h e i n s p e c t i o n
procedures, 2) reduce motorist inconvenience, and 3) allow f o r
possible reductions i n Commission s t a f f i n g .
* The t h r e e expert entomologists were s e l e c t e d with t h e a s s i s t a n c e of the
Chairman of the Entomology Department a t the University of Arizona.
Resumes d e t a i l i n g t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e t h r e e experts a r e contained i n
Appendix A.
Inspection Stations Are Needed
Quarantine programs and inspection s t a t i o n s were established t o complement the
natural b a r r i e r s ( deserts and mountains) t h a t prevent the spread of insect
pests i n t o Arizona. Because the b a r r i e r s e x i s t , people and materials carrying
pests a r e the chief means of introducing i n s e c t pests i n t o Arizona. The
inspection s t a t i o n s e x i s t t o detect and prevent t h i s form of entry for pests.
Evaluating the need for and the effectiveness of t h e i n s p e c t i o n s t a t i o n s is
d i f f i c u l t . Quarantine is by and large a preventative program. Unfortunately,
the only way t o demonstrate t h a t such a preventative program is not working is
t o i d e n t i f y occurrences of the condition to be prevented. In a d d i t i o n , t h e
absence of the condition t o be prevented is no guarantee t h a t the preventative
program is working because other f a c t o r s may also be responsible. For example,
both experts i n the f i e l d of entomology and Commission o f f i c i a l s agree t h a t 1 )
many pests brought t o Arizona w i l l not survive, and 2) some p e s t s e n t e r
Arizona despite the presence of the inspection s t a t i o n s . The problem of
evaluating a quarantine program is compounded by the f a c t t h a t there are no
established standards defining an acceptable number of pests t h a t can enter
Arizona without c o n s t i t u t i n g a danger, nor any standards defining how many
pests must be intercepted for the program to be e f f e c t i v e .
I n the absence of e s t a b l i s h e d s t a n d a r d s , t h e Office o f t h e Auditor General
employed t h e s e r v i c e s of t h r e e n a t i o n a l l y recognized entomologists t o evaluate
t h e need f o r the i n s p e c t i o n s t a t i o n s . The Office o f t h e Auditor General
developed d a t a about the performance l e v e l s of the program f o r use by t h e t h r e e
entomologists. This data was developed by ( a ) reviewing and v e r i f y i n g
e x i s t i n g Commission d a t a on t h e i n s p e c t i o n s t a t i o n s , and ( b) surveying more
than 1,000 motorists passing through t h e s t a t i o n s . * The data developed
revealed t h a t i n s p e c t i o n s t a t i o n s prevent e n t r y of up t o 86 percent of the
f r u i t s and p l a n t s quarantined e i t h e r by d i r e c t l y i n t e r c e p t i n g t h e m a t e r i a l s , or
by d e t e r r i n g t h e m o t o r i s t s from bringing t h e materials.** However, s e l f -
r e p o r t i n g by t h e motorists surveyed shows 14 percent of the quarantined f r u i t s
and p l a n t s a r e concealed by motorists and are not i n t e r c e p t e d by t h e s t a t i o n s .
Table 3 summarizes t h e s e f i g u r e s .
TABLE 3
LOTS OF FRUITS AND PLANTS INTERCEPTED,
DETERRED AND NOT INTERCEPTED BY THE STATIONS
Number Percent o f T o t a l
Lots i n t e r c e p t e d ( 1) 108,000 56%
Lots d e t e r r e d ( 2) 57,000 30%
Lots not i n t e r c e p t e d ( 2) 27,000 14%
Sources: ( 1) Arizona Commission of ( 2) Analysis of the responses t o
Agriculture and t h e Auditor General's survey
H o r t i c u l t u r e records o f m o t o r i s t s passing through
the i n s p e c t i o n s t a t i o n s
3i A copy of the survey q u e s t i o n n a i r e is included a s Appendix B.
%+ R e s u l t s o f the study on t h e d e t e r r e n t e f f e c t of the s t a t i o n s a r e
included a s Appendix C.
After reviewing the data developed by our o f f i c e , interviewing Commission s t a f f
and observing the operations of the San Simon s t a t i o n the three entomologists
concluded " The quarantine program is needed i n Arizona. Pests of a p o t e n t i a l l y
serious nature are continually being intercepted a t the borders." A f u l l copy
of the entomologists' report d e t a i l i n g t h e i r conclusions and recommendations
is contained i n Appendix A.
Inspection Procedures Are Weak
Although the consulting entomologists determined t h a t the s t a t i o n s i n t e r c e p t a
s u f f i c i e n t number of p o t e n t i a l l y serious pests t o j u s t i f y continuing the
s t a t i o n s , both the consultants and our Office found the inspection procedures
used by t h e s t a t i o n s are weak and need strengthening -- p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e
procedure of using verbal inspections.
The weaknesses are evident by the number o f motorists concealing plants and
materials when passing through the s t a t i o n s , and by the decrease i n the amount
of m a t e r i a l s i n t e r c e p t e d a t s t a t i o n s using verbal inspections.
Motorists Are Concealing Materials - Survey responses from more than 1,000
motorists passing through inspection s t a t i o n s revealed t h a t most motorists do
not carry f r u i t and plants. However, 21 percent of the motorists who did have
f r u i t , and 24 percent of the motorists who had plants, reported t h a t they
concealed t h e s e m a t e r i a l s when passing through the s t a t i o n s . Thus, present
inspection procedures a r e f a i l i n g t o detect and prevent the entry of a
s i g n i f i c a n t amount of quarantined materials.
Verbal Inspections Increase Concealment - The use of verbal inspections has a
p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the concealment r a t e and the number of
i n t e r c e p t i o n s made. The proportion of motorists concealing f r u i t is one and
one- half times greater among motorists passing through s t a t i o n s using verbal
inspections than among motorists passing through s t a t i o n s where trunks are
inspected. Further, i n the second year following the change from trunk
inspections t o verbal inspections a t the Ehrenberg and Yuma s t a t i o n s , there has
been a marked decrease i n the amount of m a t e r i a l s i n t e r c e p t e d . Table 4 shows
the decreases t h a t have occurred i n the years since the changes were made i n
the inspection procedures.
TABLE 4
A COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF INTERCEPTIONS
VERSUS THE TYPE OF INSPECTION METHOD USED FOR
FISCAL YEARS 1975- 76, 1976- 77 AND 1977- 78
8 STATION FISCAL YEAR 1975- 76 FISCAL YEAR 1976- 77 FISCAL YEAR 1977- 78
( Trunk Inspections) ( Verbal Inspections) ( Verbal Inspections)
Vehicles Interceptions Vehicles Interceptions Vehicles Interceptions
Ehrenberg 1,204,634 5,356 1,266,487 6,505 1,165,451 2,528
Y uma 1,428,022 5,635 1,487,225 4,398 1,428,924 1,833
Source: Data prepared by the Arizona Commission of Agriculture and
Horticulture.
Commission o f f i c i a l s believe the primary reason f o r the decrease i n intercep-t
i o n s i n the second year of verbal inspections a s shown i n Table 4 is a growing
awareness on t h e p a r t of motorists t h a t t h e i r vehicles w i l l not be searched.
Commission o f f i c i a l s have said:
The s i g n i f i c a n t drop i n i n t e r c e p t i o n s f o r the F i s c a l Year 1977- 78 is
undoubtedly due t o repeat t r a v e l e r s who soon learn t h a t i t ' s more
expedient t o say no t o the inquiry from the inspector than declare
any plant material and have it be held up for inspection or r e j e c t i o n
of such material.
Monitored Voluntary Compliance
Following t h e i r study of the present quarantine program, the consulting
entomologists working on t h i s audit recommended t h a t the present inspection
procedures be modified. They recommended t h a t verbal inspections be eliminated
and t h a t a " monitored voluntary compliance system" be established.
Under the proposed system of monitored voluntary compliance two types of
inspection lanes would be established a t the s t a t i o n s for passenger vehicles.
One lane would be reserved f o r motorists carrying f r u i t s and plants. T r a f f i c
signs would i n s t r u c t motorists with t h e s e m a t e r i a l s t o enter t h i s lane where an
inspector could check the materials. The other l a n e ( s ) would be reserved for
motorists who a r e not carrying f r u i t s and plants. These motorists could
proceed a t a slowed pace without stopping; however, vehicles would be selected
a t random i n t e r v a l s and be given a trunk inspection. If f r u i t and plants were
found the driver would be subject t o fines and penalties.
Reviewing the consulting entomologists1 recommendation we determined:
( a) a system of monitored voluntary compliance o f f e r s p o t e n t i a l benefits
over the present system, and
( b) such a system could be i n i t i a l l y established and tested a t the
Ehrenberg and Yuma s t a t i o n s without jeopardizing the effectiveness
of the present program.
Benefits of Monitored Voluntary Compliance. - A system of monitored voluntary
compliance o f f e r s a t l e a s t t h r e e p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s over the present inspection
system.
( 1) Increased effectiveness through the use of random trunk inspections.
The decline i n i n t e r c e p t i o n s a t s t a t i o n s using verbal inspections
shows a need for some form of trunk inspections. Random inspections
would provide t h i s deterrent e f f e c t , provided v i o l a t o r s are s u f f i -
c i e n t l y penalized.
( 2) Decreased motorist inconvenience by not requiring a l l motorists to
stop. Results o f our motorist survey show 80 percent of the
motorists do not carry f r u i t s and plants. These motorists would no
longer have t o stop a t the s t a t i o n s as they presently do.
( 3) Possible s t a f f reductions because of decreased workload. Depending
on t h e i n t e r v a l used t o s e l e c t passenger vehicles for inspection
( such as every 10th vehicle versus every 200th vehicle) a reduction
i n workload and s t a f f may be possible because inspections w i l l no
longer have t o inspect a l l cars.
P i l o t Testing. - A system of monitored voluntary compliance could be p i l o t
t e s t e d and refined a t the Ehrenberg and Yuma s t a t i o n s without jeopardizing the
effectiveness of the present program and the $ 250,000 contract f o r j o i n t
inspections with the California Department of Agriculture.
Testing the monitored voluntary compliance system a t the Ehrenberg and Yuma
s t a t i o n s would not jeopardize the effectiveness of the present system because
the verbal inspections a t the two s t a t i o n s have l a r g e l y become an unmonitored,
voluntary system. A s Commission o f f i c i a l s have previously noted ( page 16)
there has been a decline i n i n t e r c e p t i o n s a t these two s t a t i o n s because
motorists have learned t h e i r vehicles w i l l not be searched i f they do not
voluntarily declare they have f r u i t s and plants. Randomly s e l e c t i n g vehicles
f o r inspection w i l l prevent motorists from being able t o assume t h a t t h e i r
vehicle w i l l not be searched.
Also, t e s t i n g the system a t the two s t a t i o n s would allow the Commission t o
assess the effectiveness of the system by comparing interceptions under the
monitored voluntary compliance system a g a i n s t i n t e r c e p t i o n s from years when
t h e s t a t i o n s performed trunk inspections - and years when t h e s t a t i o n s have used
verbal inspections. The Commission could use such comparisons i n experimenting
with how large an i n t e r v a l should be used t o s e l e c t vehicles f o r inspection.
For example, does s e l e c t i n g every 100th car yield interceptions comparable t o
trunk inspections or comparable t o verbal inspections? Does s e l e c t i n g every
10th c a r y i e l d r e s u l t s comparable t o , or b e t t e r than trunk inspections?
Testing the system a t the two s t a t i o n s would not jeopardize the $ 250,000
received f o r joint inspections from the California Department of Agriculture.
I f California perceives t h a t t h e j o i n t inspection program is weakened, or i f
the Arizona program is discontinued, the California funds might be l o s t .
Testing the system a t the two s t a t i o n s - not performing j o i n t inspections would
not jeopardize the C a l i f o r n i a c o n t r a c t u n t i l the effectiveness of the new
system can be demonstrated.
CONCLUSION
The plant quarantine program is needed and the inspection s t a t i o n s presently
inspecting private passenger vehicles should continue t o do so. However,
c u r r e n t i n s p e c t i o n procedures, p a r t i c u l a r l y verbal inspections, need strength-ening
a s 20 percent of the motorists carrying f r u i t and plants report t h a t they
conceal t h e s e m a t e r i a l s when passing through t h e s t a t i o n s .
RECOMMENDATIONS
( 1) The inspection s t a t i o n s be continued.
( 2) The Ehrenberg and Yuma s t a t i o n s implement a system of monitored voluntary
compliance. In implementing t h i s system we recommend:
( a ) the s t a t i o n s experiment t o determine what s i z e i n t e r v a l should be
used t o s e l e c t cars for inspection based on the most cost- effective
r e s u l t s , and
( b) persons found to be concealing materials be penalized t o e s t a b l i s h a
deterrent e f f e c t .
( 3) After t e s t i n g and developing the monitored voluntary compliance system a t
Ehrenberg and Yuma, the Commission take action t o implement the system a t
the remaining three s t a t i o n s performing passenger vehicle inspection i f
the program is successful.
FINDING I1
THE STATE OF ARIZONA COULD REALIZE $ 220,000 ANNUALLY IN REDUCED COSTS AND
INCREASED REVENUE IF MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION INSPECTORS WERE USED TO PERFORM
TRUCK INSPECTIONS AT FIVE BORDER STATIONS.
The Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture currently operates five
plant quarantine border stations which only inspect trucks. Four of these
stations ( Parker, Kingman 81, Kingman 82 and Douglas) are co- located in the
same facilities with Motor Vehicle Division ( MVD) port- of- entry stations." One
station ( Solomon) is not co- located with MVD, but covers the same highway ( U. S.
70) that is covered by the MVD station at Duncan.
Reviewing the operations of these five stations we found:
a) The Commission truck inspections are largely routine and could be
easily performed by MVD inspectors.
b) Inspectors from both the Commission and MVD are under- utilized; at
four stations existing MVD staff could perform both MVD and
Commission inspections.
c) If the Commission contracted to have MVD perform its inspections,
more inspections could be performed for both agencies, MVD could
increase its collections by $ 25,000 & staffing costs could be
reduced $ 195,000 per year.
d) Officials of both agencies support the concept of combining
workloads; however, statutory authority is needed to effect such a
change.
Most Inspections Are Routine
The majority of the Commissions truck inspections are routine and could easily
be performed by MVD inspectors in conjunction with their normal duties.
* As discussed on page 26, in October 1979 the completion of 1- 40 will by-pass
Kingman ill. MVD will move to a new station. The Commission did not
receive funding to make the move and will discontinue its Kingman t l
station at that time.
Reviewing t r u c k i n s p e c t i o n s , we found the Commission categorizes its
inspections i n t o three types of inspections:
1) Reviews of b i l l s of lading - Commission inspectors review the b i l l
of l a d i n g o f each truck t o determine whether the cargo contains
a g r i c u l t u r a l goods. If the truck is hauling non- agricultural goods-
- such as steel-- the b i l l o f l a d i n g is stamped and the truck released.
2) Visual inspections - If the b i l l of lading shows the truck t o be
empty, or t o be carrying cotton, machinery, o i l d r i l l i n g equipment,
grain, nursery stock or c i t r u s , the truck is v i s u a l l y inspected. The
inspector looks t o see t h a t the truck is r e a l l y empty and/ or has no
mud or materials t h a t may be t r a n s p o r t i n g p e s t s .
3) Quarantine - If an inspector finds a truck is c a r r y i n g m a t e r i a l s
covered by quarantine regulations he may: a) r e j e c t entry of the
truck i n t o the S t a t e , b) p l a c e t h e t r u c k under a quarantine seal
u n t i l it e x i t s Arizona, or c) place the truck under a quarantine •
s e a l u n t i l it is t r e a t e d and released under the d i r e c t i o n of other
Commission employees.
We found very few t r u c k i n s p e c t i o n s involve quarantining a truck. The great
majority of the inspections ( 88%) a r e limited t o a quick review of the b i l l of
lading-- a task t h a t could e a s i l y be performed during the course of a MVD
i n s p e c t o r ' s duties. We a l s o found many MVD inspectors a r e familiar with the
Commission's inspection procedures and some MVD inspectors formerly served as
Commission inspectors.
Table 5 summarizes the r e l a t i v e percentage of each type of Commission
inspection performed and the time required.
TABLE 5
TYPES OF TRUCK INSPECTIONS PERFORMED
BY ARIZONA COMMISSION OF AGRICULTURE
AND HORTICULTURE INSPECTORS
Percent of Minutes Required
Type Total Inspections per Inspection
Review b i l l of lading 88% 0.5
Visual inspections 8% 3.0
Quarantine 4 % 7 0
Source: Time s t u d i e s performed by the Arizona Commission o f Agriculture and
Horticulture.
Inspectors Are Under- Utilized
Inspectors from both the Commission and MVD are under- utilized. Inspections
f o r both agencies could be combined and more e f f i c i e n t l y handled by j u s t one
agency. The Motor Vehicle Division should be the agency to handle the combined
inspections because 1) MVD inspections involve more duties, and 2) MVD
inspectors must c o l l e c t and handle cash.
The five s t a t i o n s examined are smaller s t a t i o n s with less t r a f f i c and l i g h t e r
workloads than t h e o t h e r Commission s t a t i o n s . However, because of the nature
of t h e i r operations they must be s t a f f e d around the clock. Ordinarily, f i v e
persons a r e required t o operate a s t a t i o n around the clock using a minimum of
one person per s h i f t , three s h i f t s per day, seven days per week. Thus, even a
smaller s t a t i o n requires four to f i v e persons. However, i f it is t o be opened
on a continuous basis, these four or f i v e persons may actually perform fewer
inspections than one person working full- time. For example, we found one
s t a t i o n has four inspectors who inspect 16,000 trucks per year. This is an
average of l e s s than two trucks per hour* or less than 15 percent o f the
inspections one full- time person can perform. A s a r e s u l t , inspectors have
excessive i d l e time while they sit and wait for trucks. When there are
inspectors from both the Commission and MVD waiting f o r the same trucks, the
problem is compounded.
* By c o n t r a s t , one person working a t capacity can inspect 55- 60 trucks per
hour.
Comparing the present s t a f f i n g l e v e l s of the two agencies a t the f i v e s t a t i o n s
to the a c t u a l workload expressed i n terms of full- time equivalent positions
( FTE1s) we found the combined s t a f f i n g is more than three times g r e a t e r than
the combined a c t u a l workload. Table 6 shows the r e s u l t s of t h i s comparison.
TABLE 6
A COMPARISON OF THE ARIZONA COMMISSION OF
AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE'S ( ACAH) AND
THE MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION'S ( MVD)
STAFFING VERSUS WORKLOAD REQUIREMENTS
Station
Parker
Present Staffing Level Actual Workload ( In FTEts) a
ACAH - MVD Combined ACAH' - M V D ~ Combined
4 4 8 0.16 1.17 1- 33
Kingman # 1 ( Highway 66 1 8 9 2.11 5.12 7 .23
Kingman ! I2 ( Highway 93) 4 4 8 0.79 1.54 2.33
Douglas 4 2 6 0.12 0.33 0.45
Solomon- Duncan 4 - 5 - 3 - 8 0.09 - 0.23 0.32
Total - 18 - 2 1 - 39 3.27 8.39 11.66
ACAH workload projections a r e based on time s t u d i e s developed by ACAH.
Z MVD workload projections a r e based on time s t u d i e s developed by the Office
of the Auditor General in conjunction with MVD o f f i c i a l s .
Kingman # I was previously s t a f f e d by five persons and had an FTE workload
of 2.11. However, i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of the completion of 1- 40 which w i l l
by- pass the s t a t i o n , four vacancies have not been f i l l e d . I n s t e a d , t h e
positions have been t r a n s f e r r e d to other s t a t i o n s . The 2.11 FTE is still
shown because t h i s is the workload t h a t would be involved in any contract
with MVD which w i l l operate a s t a t i o n on 1- 40.
4
The Solomon s t a t i o n is not co- located with MVD. However, MVD does have a
s t a t i o n a t Duncan which covers the same main highway ( U. S. 70).
Reviewing Table 6, it appears t h a t the Commission w i l l : 1) be able t o
eliminate its 18 p o s i t i o n s , and 2) need t o fund f i v e additional MVD positions
on a contract basis. These a d d i t i o n a l MVD positions w i l l be needed because:
1) the combined workload of Kingman ill exceeds MVD staff capacity on s p e c i f i c
s h i f t s , and 2) MVD s t a t i o n s a t Douglas and Solomon- Duncan w i l l need to extend
t h e i r hours of operation t o maintain around- the- clock quarantine coverage.
S t a f f i n g By S h i f t - The Commission would need t o contract with MVD t o fund - two
inspectors a t the Kingman ill s t a t i o n i f MVD were t o assume the Commission's
inspection r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . T r a f f i c volume is not constant throughout the day
a t the Kingman jl1 s t a t i o n . A s a r e s u l t , some s h i f t s have more t r a f f i c and
therefore heavier workloads. A t the Kingman K1 s t a t i o n t r a f f i c is heaviest on
the second and t h i r d s h i f t s . The MVD inspectors on these s h i f t s a r e already
performing a t or near capacity. Adding Commission inspection r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
t o t h i s workload would cause the workload t o exceed the present MVD s t a f f
capacity.
No additional s t a f f i n g would be needed t o meet the increased workload on
s p e c i f i c s h i f t s a t t h e o t h e r s t a t i o n s a s shown i n Table 7 which compares MVD
current s t a f f i n g t o the combined a c t u a l workload of the Commission and MVD, by
s h i f t , a t the f i v e s t a t i o n s .
TABLE 7
A COMPARISON OF MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION
STAFFING VERSUS THE COMBINED WORKLOAD
( IN FTE'S) OF THE COMMISION OF
AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE AND THE
MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION, BY SHIFT AND
BY STATION
Parker Kingman / I1 Kingman 82 Douglas Solomon- Duncan
MVD Combined MVD Combined MVD Combined MVD Combined MVD Combined
Staff* Workload Staff* Workload Staff* Workload Staff* Workload Staff* Workload
1 s t S h i f t 1 0.33 2 1.81 1 0.58 ++ i * IS 1 0.08
2nd S h i f t 1 0.48 2 2.60** 1 0.83 1 0.22 1 0.11
3rd S h i f t 1 0.52 2 2.82" s 1 0.92 1 0.23 1 0.13
Source: Analysis of time study data developed by the Office of the AuditorGeneral and the Arizona Commission of
Agriculture and Horticulture.
* S t a f f i n g is shown by the number of persons on duty during a p a r t i c u l a r s h i f t and not as t o t a l s t a f f i n g . Because
of s t a f f absences for such things as weekends, holidays and vacations, 4.85 full- time equivalent positions are
required t o have one person on duty a t a l l times. ** Combined workload exceeds current MVD s t a f f capacity. *** No MVD s t a f f on duty on t h i s s h i f t .
Hours Of Operation - The Commission would need t o contract with MVD t o fund
three inspectors i f MVD is t o perform the t r u c k i n s p e c t i o n s a t the Douglas and
Solomon- Duncan s t a t i o n s on an around- the- clock basis. The Commission
currently o p e r a t e s t h e s e s t a t i o n s 24 hours per day seven days a week while the
MVD operates its Douglas s t a t i o n 16 hours per day, f i v e days a week and its
Duncan s t a t i o n 24 hours per day f i v e days a week. Thus t o maintain the current
e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e quarantine program MVD would need t o operate the same
hours a s the Commission does presently. It should be noted t h a t increasing the
MVD s t a f f i n g by t h r e e p o s i t i o n s a t these two s t a t i o n s w i l l still r e s u l t i n a
net savings of s i x positions i n t h a t nine Commission positions w i l l be
eliminated. Further, by expanding t o an around- the- clock basis the MVD w i l l
expand its inspection program by an estimated 6,400 trucks per year.
Benefits: Increased Inspections A t Reduced Cost
Three benefits would r e s u l t from MVD performing the Commission's truck
inspections:
1. Inspections f o r both agencies would be increased,
2. MVD revenue c o l l e c t i o n s could be increased by $ 26,000, and
3. The costs of performing t h e i n s p e c t i o n s could be reduced by $ 195,000
per year.
Increased Inspections - Inspections f o r both agencies could be increased i f the
Commission contracted with MVD t o perform its inspections.
Commission inspections would be increased because it would allow the Commission
t o r e t a i n i n s p e c t i o n s o f more than 200,000 trucks t h a t w i l l soon be by- passing
the Kingman 111 s t a t i o n . Kingman 111 is located on U. S. Highway 66. When 1- 40 is
completed a t Kingman the present s t a t i o n w i l l be by- passed. In October 1979
MVD plans t o move t o a new s t a t i o n t h a t w i l l inspect the 1- 40 t r a f f i c . The
Commission d i d n o t r e c e i v e funding t o move t o the new location with MVD.
Therefore, the Commission has already reduced its Kingman f l s t a f f by a t t r i t i o n
from f i v e persons t o one person and w i l l c l o s e t h e s t a t i o n when MVD moves. If
MVD contracted to do Commission inspections, then quarantine inspections w i l l
be performed on the 200,000 trucks per year t h a t w i l l t r a v e l 1- 40 and would not
otherwise be inspected f o r i n s e c t s and diseased plants.
Motor Vehicle Division inspections would be increased because it would allow
MVD t o operate longer hours at the Solomon- Duncan and Douglas s t a t i o n s . A s
previously discussed, the Commission c u r r e n t l y o p e r a t e s more hours per day and
more days per week a t these s t a t i o n s than MVD. If the Commission contracted
with MVD t o maintain the same hours the Commission is currently maintaining,
MVD would be able t o inspect more than 6,300 trucks t h a t it cannot currently
inspect because of its more limited hours.
Increased Revenue - By increasing the number of MVD inspections performed
through a contract with the Commission, the amount of revenue collected by MVD
could also be increased. In 1978 the Douglas and Duncan s t a t i o n s collected
$ 48,000 i n revenue from MVD truck inspections. Under a contract with the
0
Commission to extend MVD's hours o f operations, we estimate an additional
$ 26,000 would be collected each year.
Reduced Costs - While inspections could be increased, t h e c o s t s of performing
the inspections could be decreased by $ 195,000 per year i f MVD performed the
Commission's truck inspections.
The Commission currently is funding 18 positions assigned to the f i v e s t a t i o n s .
I f the Commission contracted with MVD it would need to fund five positions on a
c o n t r a c t b a s i s with MVD. Thus the Commission could reduce s t a f f i n g by 13
positions.
We c a l c u l a t e the average cost o f a Commission i n s p e c t o r ' s position to be
approximately $ 15,000 per year ( including employee related expenses).
Eliminating funding for 13 positions would therefore r e s u l t in savings of
$ 195,000 per year.
Statutory Authority Is Needed
We discussed the p o s s i b i l i t y of MVD performing Commission inspections with both
Commission and MVD o f f i c i a l s . O f f i c i a l s from both agencies are supportive of
the concept; however, MVD cannot enter i n t o a contract to perform the
inspections unless it is granted s t a t u t o r y authority to do so.
In an opinion requested by our Office, the Arizona Legislative Council reviewed
the powers of the Commission and MVD t o enter i n t o a contract f o r j o i n t
inspections." Arizona Legislative Council found the Commission can enter i n t o
a contract to have other agencies perform its inspections. However, MVDts
current s t a t u t e s only allow it t o contract with other departments when such
contracts: a ) involve a f e d e r a l b e n e f i t t o the S t a t e f o r transportation, or
b) are necessary t o c a r r y o u t the d u t i e s of the Department of Transportation.
Arizona Legislative Council thus concluded:
" Though the Arizona Commission of Agriculture and
Horticulture apparently may contract for the joint
operation o f a g r i c u l t u r a l inspection s t a t i o n s and for the
j o i n t performance o f inspection functions, the Motor
Vehicle Division of the Department of Transportation may
not. Specific s t a t u t o r y authority must be granted t o the
Department of Transportation before such a contract would
be valid.
CONCLUSION
Using the Motor Vehicle Division to conduct truck inspections f o r t h e Arizona
Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture would r e s u l t i n a) an increase i n
the number o f inspections performed by both agencies, b) an increase o f
$ 26,000 i n revenue collected by MVD, and c) a savings t o the S t a t e of $ 195,000
per year in reduced inspection costs.
" A f u l l copy of t h i s opinion appears a s Appendix D.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We recommend the Legislature provide the needed s t a t u t o r y authority for
the Motor Vehicle Division to enter i n t o a contract t o perform inspections
f o r the Arizona Commission o f Agriculture and Horticulture.
2. When s t a t u t o r y authority is granted, we recommend the Arizona Commission
of Agriculture and Horticulture contract with the Motor Vehicle Division
to perform truck inspections a t f i v e s t a t i o n s . We recommend the contract
amount be for the equivalent of f i v e positions to allow MVD t o meet the
increased workload and extend its hours of operations.
3. We recommend appropriate adjustments then be made in the budget of the
Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture t o r e f l e c t the savings
o f eliminating 13 positions.
FINDING I11
FEES SHOULD BE CHARGED TO RECOVER AN ADDITIONAL $ 72,000 I N UNRECOVERED COSTS
FOR NURSERY, APIARY AND SEED INSPECTIONS.
Substantial portions of the Nursery, Apiary* and Seed Programs could be
appropriately funded through the imposition o f inspection and l i c e n s e f e e s
r a t h e r than general fund appropriations. The cost of the three programs in
f i s c a l year 1978- 79 was more than $ 131,000 of which only $ 12,000 was recovered
by fees. An additional $ 72,000 could have been recovered if Arizona charged
fees for these services similar to the fees charged by other s t a t e s .
Nursery Services
According to the Arizona Commission o f Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e l s 1977- 78
Annual Report, " nursery stock is one of the highest r i s k s of introduction of
dangerous i n s e c t p e s t s and diseases i n t o Arizona. ll In order to detect and
abate such i n t r o d u c t i o n s , i n s p e c t o r s of the Pest Control Division make annual
and spot inspections o f the 1,600 nurseries and plant dealers i n the s t a t e .
Thus, the existence and operation o f nurseries has created a necessary
inspection burden f o r t h e Commission. The cost of these inspections i n f i s c a l
year 1978- 79 was over $ 61,000. The e n t i r e program cost is supported by s t a t e
general funds. No authority e x i s t s t o c o l l e c t e i t h e r c e r t i f i c a t e or inspection
fees .
A survey conducted by the Office o f the Auditor General revealed t h a t 38 other
s t a t e s charge fees f o r e i t h e r nursery l i c e n s e s , c e r t i f i c a t e s or inspections.
In Washington, the nursery program is e n t i r e l y funded by fees and i n Arkansas,
fees provide more than 90 percent of the Nursery Program's funding. Table 8
shows t h e f e e s charged f o r licensure, c e r t i f i c a t i o n o r i n s p e c t i o n s by s t a t e .
* An Apiary is a place where bees are kept.
I)
SURVEY OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE
NURSERY INSPECTIONS
License or Certify* Inspect Nurseries
Nurseries to do Business? for Pests?
Yes No - Yes
I f yes, how frequently
must they be inspected: Fees Charged for:
- S t- a t e License or C e r t i f i c a t e Inspections
1. Alabama Annually Growers $ 20 - $ 100 No fee
Dealers ( r e t a i l e r s ) : $ 10
per location
2. Alaska
3. ARIZONA
4. Arkansas
Annually
Annually
No fee No fee
$ 30 plus charge for yard
space over 500 sq. f t .
5. California
6. Colorado
7. Connecticut
8. Delaware
9. Florida
10. Georgia
Not s p e c i f i e d
Annually
Not s p e c i f i e d
Annually
Not s p e c i f i e d
Annually
$ 50 plus acreage fee No fee
Yes - no amounts given Yes - no amounts given
No fee No fee
No fee No fee
$ 5/ acre No fee
Min: $ 15 Max: $ 200
2 11. Hawaii X X Com. Exporter: $ 10 $ 10 - $ 20
( Comm. Exporter's License)
Not s p e c i f i e d
12. Idaho
13. I l l i n o i s
$ 15 No fee
$ 15 - $ 125, depending Special inspections:
on acreage $ 8/ hr. plus mileage
$ 15 $ 10 plus 50@/ acre
$ 5 - $ 65 No fee
$ 20 $ 2/ acre
$ 5/ dealer $ 5/ inspec tion
Annually
Annually
Greenhouses: twice/ year
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
14. Indiana
15. Iowa
16. Kansas
17. Kentucky X
( Done by College of
Agric., U of K)
18. Louisiana
19. Maine
20. Maryland
21. Massachusetts
22. Michigan
Twice/ year
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Up to $ 25
$ 5 ( f o r 3 years)
$ 20
$ 20 ( Nursery agents)
$ 25
No fee
No fee
$ 1 per acre up to $ 500
$ 5 - $ 35
$ 10 f i r s t acre; $ 5 each
a d d i t i o n a l acre
23. Minnesota $ 25 - $ 200 based on
gross s a l e s
No fee
No fee
$ 15 - $ 300 based on
acreage
Not specified
24. Mississippi
25. Missouri
Twice/ year
Annually
No fee
Less than 1/ 2 acre: $ 5
1/ 2 to 1 acre: $ 10
Each a d d i t i o n a l acre: $ 1
See f o l l o ing page ii
TABLE 8
SURVEY OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE
NURSERY INSPECTIONS
License or Certify*
Nurseries t o do Business?
Yes - No
Inspect Nurseries
for Pests?
- Yes
I f yes, how frequently
must they be inspected2 Pees Charged for:
S t a t e License or C e r t i f i c a t e Inspections
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Twice/ year
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annual1 y
Annually
Annually
Annually
$ 10, $ 20, or $ 30 $ 10 per c e r t i f i c a t e
No fee
$ 25
No fee
No fee
$ 5 plus 50$/ acre
No fee
No fee
No fee
$ 10, $ 25 $ 10, $ 25
$ 15 No fee
$ 5 f i r s t acre; No fee
$ 1 each a d d i t i o n a l acre
34. North Dakota
35. Ohio
Annually
Annually
$ 10; Agent - $ 5 No fee
Dealer - $ 20 No fee
Grower - $ 30 plus $ l/ acre
Oklahoma
Oregon
Annually
Annually Additional f e e f o r
s p e c i a l c e r t i f i c a t i o n
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Once or twice a year
Annually
Twice/ year
Not s p e c i f i e d
Annually
No fee
$ 10
No fee
$ 10 - $ 15
No fee
$ 5 - $ 25
$ 10
No fee
No fee
No fee
No fee
No fee
No fee
No fee
No fee
No fee
$ 10 ; Dealers - $ 2 No fee
$ 10, $ 20 No fee
$ 10, $ 35 or more depending No fee
on acreage and volume of
business.
50. Wyoming - X - Annually $ 10 No fee
4 9 1
* Licensing precludes a nursery from doing business u n t i l c e r t a i n requirements are met, including a periodic inspection and the payment of a fee. In
some s t a t e s , " certifying" may be i d e n t i c a l o r similar to licensing. In orther s t a t e s , including Arizona, c e r t i f i c a t i o n my not be required In order
to do business, but is merely a declaration t h a t the c e r t i f i e d nursery is free of dangerous pests and diseases.
Two arguments can be cited i n favor of charging l i c e n s e , c e r t i f i c a t e o r
inspection fees: 1) the cost of nursery inspections should be paid, a t l e a s t i n
p a r t , by those who make t h e s e r v i c e s necessary, and 2) some nurserymen
d i r e c t l y benefit economically from the inspections. To i l l u s t r a t e how such a
d i r e c t economic benefit occurs, consider the rose business i n Arizona.
One of the s t a t e ' s l a r g e s t growers ships rose bush cuttings out- of- state in
large numbers. However, some other states w i l l not accept such shipments
unless they are accompanied by Commission c e r t i f i c a t e s declaring the plants to
be f r e e o f p e s t s and disease. The Commission must provide several staff weeks
of inspection services i n order to issue the c e r t i f i c a t e s for these shipments. ( I
For example, during the shipping season of t h i s grower, two Commission employees
spend a week at the grower's e a l e r ' s packing shed looking for diseases and
pests common t o r o s e p l a n t s . During the growing season, Commission s t a f f
sample the f i e l d s of t h i s same grower for nematodes. This process r e q u i r e s t h e
Commission's plant pathologist and an a s s i s t a n t to dig and analyze s o i l samples
over a two- month period, consuming about four s t a f f weeks of a c t u a l time. In
t o t a l , t h i s one rose grower receives more than $ 2,000 worth of Commission
services a t no cost. In e f f e c t , t h i s nursery business is being subsidized by
the S t a t e General Fund.
A t l e a s t $ 37,000 of the $ 61,000 i n nursery inspection costs could be recovered
annually i f general n u r s e r i e s , growers and wholesalers were annually charged
$ 25 plus $ 5/ acre for a license or c e r t i f i c a t e , and f l o r i s t s and incidental
nursery dealers were annually charged a f l a t $ 10 for a license or c e r t i f i c a t e .
The proposed fees for general n u r s e r i e s , growers and wholesalers would be
similar t o those used by California and 15 other s t a t e s which vary t h e f e e s
according t o business size. In addition, hourly and mileage charges for
special c e r t i f i c a t i o n inspections, such a s those provided t h e r o s e grower
described above, would increase the recovery of costs by several thousand
d o l l a r s annually.
Apiary Services
Bee diseases are highly contagious, and i f n o t c o n t r o l l e d can cause s i g n i f i c a n t
economic damage a s a r e s u l t of reduced crop p o l l i n a t i o n and honey production.
The Apiary Services Section of the Pest Control Division is responsible for the
inspection of a l l a p i a r i e s to detect and abate disease.
A s with nursery services, no s t a t u t o r y authority e x i s t s to charge fees for
apiary inspections. Therefore, the costs of a p i a r y s e r v i c e s are supported by
the S t a t e General Fund. In f i s c a l year 1978- 79 these costs were approximately
$ 38,000.
Beekeepers benefit d i r e c t l y from a p i a r y i n s p e c t i o n services i n t h a t t h e c o n t r o l
of bee diseases enhances t h e i r economic well being. It appears t h a t the
regulatory and educational work o f t h e S t a t e Apiary Inspector has been
e f f e c t i v e i n controlling some bee diseases as t h e o v e r a l l i n f e c t i o n r a t e of
American Foul Brood disease i n Arizona has declined measureably since 1974.
In addition, some commercial beekeepers receive many hours of f r e e Commission
s t a f f time which permits them t o move t h e i r hives i n t o other s t a t e s . Further,
Commission s t a f f provide f r e e consultation services upon request to hobbyists
and commercial beekeepers. In 1978, it cost approximately $ 11,000 t o c e r t i f y
15,000 bee colonies in Arizona, an average of 73 cents per colony. According
t o the S t a t e Apiary Inspector t h i s average cost should go down s l i g h t l y i n 1979
because of changes in the inspection procedures.
An Auditor General survey revealed t h a t 48 s t a t e s inspect a p i a r i e s and t h a t 25
s t a t e s charge a fee for one or more of the following services: licensing, hive
r e g i s t r a t i o n , regular inspections, or c e r t i f i c a t i o n inspections. Licensing or
r e g i s t r a t i o n fees generally fund regular inspections. Table 9 summarizes the
fees charged by various s t a t e s for a p i a r y s e r v i c e s .
The S t a t e Apiary Inspector favors the establishment of a fee s t r u c t u r e ,
p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n inspections. He recommends a 50 cent per colony
charge for c e r t i f i c a t i o n inspections and o t h e r i n s p e c t i o n s performed upon
request. If a 10 cent per colony fee were a l s o charged for a l l beekeepers
r e g i s t e r i n g t h e i r hives a s some other s t a t e s do, more than $ 15,000 of the
$ 38,000 i n a p i a r y i n s p e c t i o n costs could be recovered.
TABLE 9
SURVEY OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE
APIARY INSPECTIONS
Requires Beekeepers to: Does S t a t e Inspect Apiaries? Amounts Charged for:
If yes, how often i s
Obtain Register Register inspection required Licensing or
S t a t e Licenses Their Hives Their Brands Yes by law? Registration C e r t i f i c a t i o n Inspection
Alabama
Alaska
1- 25 colonies: $ 2
Over 25 col: $ 5-$ 25
-
ARIZONA X oncelyear No fee No fee
Arkansas X Oncelyear No fee No fee
California
Colorado
X X Not specified by law 0- 9 col: no charge Cost of inspection
( County 10- 7500 col: $ 7.50 - $ 120
Inspectors) Over 7500 col: $ 150
X Once every 2 yrs. 1- 50 col: $ 5
Over 50 col: $ 10-$ 25
Connecticut X No fee No fee
Delaware X 0nce/ year No fee No fee
Florida X Oncelyear No fee No fee
Georgia
Hawaii
X Every 18 mos.
X
$ 25 ( l i f e - t i m e ) No fee
Idaho X Not specified by law lO~/ colony $ 10/ hr.($ 20 min) plus mileage
I l l i n o i s X 0nceIyear No fee No fee
Indiana X oncelyear NO fee
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky X
X Oncelyear No fee
X Not s p e c i f i e d by law lO~/ colony No fee
X Not s p e c i f i e d by law 1- 3 colonies: 2 5 ~
Over 3 col: 5~ each
Louisiana X Oncelyear No fee
Maine X X lO~/ colony; $ 1 min.
Maryland X Oncelyear No No fee
Massachusetts X Oncelyear No fee
Michigan X As determined by Director 1 s t apiary: $ 3.50 Cost of inspection
$ 1 each a d d i t i o n a l a p i a r y
Minnesota
Mississippi
Once every 2 years
Oncelyear
$ 5 r e g i s t r a t i o n ; 25~ 1colony
1 5 ~ l c o l o n yf or regular
inspection
No fee
Missouri X Upon request or when disease
i s suspected.
$ 5 f i r s t 5 hives opened;
5 0 ~ pe r hive a f t e r 5;
plus mileage
Montana
Nebraska
$ 20 plus per diem and travel
expenses
$ 3
Nevada X Not s e t by 1 3 ~
TABLE 9
SURVEY OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE
APIARY INSPECT IONS
Requires Beekeepers to: Does State Inspect Apiaries? Amounts Charged for:
If yes, how often is
Obtain Register Register inspection required Licensing or
State Licenses Their Hives Their Brands Yes by law? Registration Certification Inspection
New Jersey X
New Mexico ~ ommeriial
Apiaries only
New York
North Carolina X X ( Volun-
( queen breeders) tary)
North Dakota X X
Ohio X
Oklahoma X
Oregon X
No fee
$ 2 - 5 per apiary;
$ 200 max./ beekeeper
No fee
No fee
Oncelyear
Not set by law
No fee
No fee
oncelyear
Upon request
~ ncelyear
No fee
No fee No fee
$ 1 plus 15clcolony
over six
No fee
No fee ($ 50 fine for
- not registering)
Every 2 years
~ ncelyear
No fee
No fee
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina Upon request or when
moving hives
No fee
41. South Dakota
W
cn
X Interstate movement:
~ ncelyear
Others: once/?. yrs.
A fee is charged, but no
amounts given
42. Tennessee X As necessary No fee
5 0 ~( 1pe r hive )
$ 5
43. Texas
44. Utah X Oncelyear
( County
~ nspectors)
No fee No fee
No fee
$ 12/ hour
No fee
Cost of inspection
No fee
45. Vermont
46. Virginia
47. Washington X Every 2 years No fee
48. West Virginia X No fee
49. Wisconsin
50. Wyoming No fee
Seed Control
The S t a t e Seed Inspector enforces state and federal seed laws by visually
inspecting container l a b e l s and taking seed samples which are analyzed for
compliance with standards. Seed dealers are in violation i f they s e l l seed
which 1) has germination t e s t s which are out of date, 2) does not meet
standards of purity, germination r a t e or noxious weed seed content, or 3) lists
a s u b s t a n t i a l l y higher q u a l i t y on its label than is shown by a sample t e s t .
The seed regulatory program cost approximately $ 32,000 i n f i s c a l year 1978- 79,
of which $ 11,700 was recovered through l i c e n s e f e e s and other charges. S t a t e
law requires a l l persons who sell or process seed in Arizona to obtain a
l i c e n s e and pay a $ 10 fee. This provides approximately $ 11,000 in revenue. In
a d d i t i o n , t h e Commission has collected approximately $ 700 by charging a fee of
$ 3.25 per half- hour for f i e l d and warehouse c e r t i f i c a t i o n fees and $ 1.00 for
the issuance of phytosanitary c e r t i f i c a t e s . However, the Attorney General's
Office has recently advised the Commission t h a t no s t a t u t o r y authority
currently e x i s t s to charge fees for the c e r t i f i c a t i o n inspections.
A survey conducted by the Office of the Auditor General revealed that 25 other
s t a t e s fund part or a l l of t h e i r seed program through fees. Table 10 shows the
r e s u l t s of t h a t survey. A s shown i n Table 10 eight s t a t e s ( Arkansas,
California, Indiana, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Washington)
recover 100 percent of t h e i r inspection program costs through the use of fees.
TABLE 10
State
1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. ARIZONA
4. Arkansas
5. California
6. Colorado
7. Connecticut
8. Delaware
9. Florida
10. Georgia
11. Hawaii
12. Idaho
13. Illinois
14. Indiana
15. Iowa
16. Kansas
17. Kentucky
18. Louisiana
19. Maine
20. Maryland
21. Massachusetts
22. Michigan
23. Minnesota
24. Mississippi
25. Missouri
26. Montana
27. Nebraska
28. Nevada
29. New Hampshire
30. New Jersey
31. New Mexico
32. New York
33. North Carolina
34. North Dakota
35. Ohio
36. Oklahoma
37. Oregon
38. Pennsylvania
39. Rhode Island
40. South Carolina
41. South Dakota
42. Tennessee
43. Texas
44. Utah
45. Vermont
46. Virginia
7 Washington
48. West Virginia
49. Wisconsin
50. Wyoming
FINDING SOURCES FOR STATE
SEED CONTROL PROGRAMS*
Source of Funds:
General Fund - Fees
25% 75%
100 0
62 38
0 100
0 100
100 0
100 0
90 10
66 34
100 0
95 5
100 0
100 0
0 100
Source: Responses to questionnaires sent to state departments of agriculture
** Tbyh e tNheew OfHfaimcpes hoirfe thLee gAiusdliattourr eG cenuetr aall. l seed funds in fiscal year 1978- 79.
The eight s t a t e s t h a t recover a l l inspection program costs through fees base
t h e i r inspection fees on business volume. This is done in two ways: 1) by
assessing a surcharge or inspection fee based on the pounds of seed sold, or 2)
by assessing fees based on the d o l l a r amount of seed sold. For example,
Indiana c o l l e c t s 6 - 169 per 100 pounds of seed sold, depending on the type of
seed. Washington c o l l e c t s 109 per 100 d o l l a r s of seed s o l d p l u s a $ 10 - $ 20
permit fee from each dealer. California a l s o follows t h i s l a t t e r approach,
c o l l e c t i n g 15 - 20C per 100 d o l l a r s of seed sold plus an annual permit fee.
Under e i t h e r method, only companies whose names are on t h e l a b e l s o r tags of
the seed packages pay the fees. However, the Washington/ California method
charging per 100 d o l l a r s of sales has the advantage o f automatically increasing
regulatory funding as i n f l a t i o n increases.
If Arizona charged 10$ per 100 d o l l a r s of seed s a l e s , and continued the
s t a t u t o r y 10 d o l l a r l i c e n s e f e e , t h e f u l l costs of the $ 32,000 seed control
program could be recovered.
It should be noted t h a t the concept of assessing inspection fees based on
business volume to fund the inspection program already e x i s t s i n two of the
S t a t e ' s other a g r i c u l t u r a l regulatory programs - Fruit and Vegetable
Standardization and the S t a t e Chemist. Both of these programs a r e e n t i r e l y
self- supporting and are funded by inspection fees based on volume of business.
CONCLUSION
Arizona could appropriately fund an additional $ 72,000 of the $ 131,000 costs of
its nursery, apiary and seed inspection programs through the use of fees. This
would be consistent with both t h e p r a c t i c e followed by other s t a t e s and the
p r a c t i c e followed in other programs supervised by the Arizona Commission of
Agriculture and Horticulture.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Commission be given s t a t u t o r y authority t o c o l l e c t fees for the
nursery inspection program. Fees should be variable, depending on the
acreage, and type of nursery.
2. The Commission be given s t a t u t o r y authority to recover a l l costs of
special nursery c e r t i f i c a t i o n inspections. These costs might best be
recovered by hourly and mileage charges.
3. The Commission be given s t a t u t o r y authority to charge fees for apiary
inspection services. A combination of a variable or per colony
r e g i s t r a t i o n fee plus a fee f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n inspections might be the
best approach.
4. The Commission be given s t a t u t o r y authority to c o l l e c t seed permit fees
which vary according t o a d e a l e r ' s volume of business.
FINDING I V
GREATER ACTION AND STRONGER PENALTIES ARE NEEDED I N THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
NATIVE PLANT AND STATE SEED LAWS.
The Compliance Division of the Agriculture and Horticulture Commission is
responsible f o r t h e enforcement of both the Native Plant and S t a t e Seed laws.
Our review of the two programs revealed t h a t the enforcement methods used and
penalties imposed are not s u f f i c i e n t to deter v i o l a t i o n s o f these laws.
Native Plant Law Enforcement
Native plants ( including both c a c t i and s p e c i f i e d n a t i v e t r e e s ) are protected
by the provisions of ARS 3- 901 through 3- 909. These s t a t u t e s make it i l l e g a l
to "... destroy, dig up, mutilate, or take any l i v i n g plant, or the l i v i n g or
dead p a r t s of any t r e e s , except f r u i t , of the protected group...!' without
obtaining permission from the landowner and permits from the Arizona Commission
of Agriculture and Horticulture.
The Native Plant Program within the Compliance Division of the Commission is
responsible for c a r r y i n g o u t the provisions of these s t a t u t e s r e l a t i n g to the
protection of native plants. The Program has f i v e full- time s t a f f * who perform
d u t i e s such as: issuing permits for s a l e and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of n a t i v e p l a n t s ,
surveying land t o provide for the removal of n a t i v e p l a n t s endangered by road
or other construction, providing t r a i n i n g regarding the provisions of the
Native Plant Law, and i n v e s t i g a t i n g and a s s i s t i n g i n the prosecution of Native
P l a n t v i o l a t o r s .
In reviewing the Native Plant Program we found:
a. Additional coverage can be obtained i f Arizona law enforcement
o f f i c e r s were trained regarding n a t i v e p l a n t laws.
b. The current penalties for Native Plant violations are not severe
enough. A s a r e s u l t , crime can pay for Native Plant v i o l a t o r s .
* Including the Division Director.
Training For Law Enforcement Agencies - The Compliance Division has f i v e
full- time employees assigned to the Native Plant Program and the equivalent o f
two full- time d i s t r i c t employees. Thus the Native Plant Law is being enforced
over 113,575 square miles of Arizona landscape t h a t is populated with protected
n a t i v e p l a n t s by the equivalent o f only seven full- time employees.
A s a r e s u l t , each employee is responsible for an average of 16,225 square miles
of Arizona landscape. This limited coverage could be g r e a t l y increased i f the
Department directed more e f f o r t to training Arizona law enforcement o f f i c e r s i n
the provisions o f the Native Plant Law.
Arizona Revised S t a t u t e 3- 906 provides for the enforcement of the Native Plant
Law by both Commission employees - and any peace o f f i c e r in the s t a t e . This
s t a t u t e provides f o r the p o t e n t i a l of having every p o l i c e o f f i c e r i n Arizona
enforcing the Native Plant Law in addition to the seven Commission employees.
However, these police o f f i c e r s are n o t c u r r e n t l y enforcing the Native Plant Law
because, according to the Director of the Compliance Division, law enforcement
agencies currently do not know about, or support enforcement of, the Native
Plant Law.
The Office of the Auditor General contacted ten Arizona law enforcement
agencies* located i n areas heavily populated by protected native plants. Based
upon information provided by these agencies, it appears t h a t they are
supportive o f the Native Plant Law. However, according to o f f i c i a l s of these
agencies t h e i r o f f i c e r s have not had t h e t r a i n i n g needed to properly enforce
the law. For example, o f f i c i a l s at seven agencies reported t h e i r o f f i c e r s had
received no training i n the enforcement of the Native Plant Law. I n f a c t , the
most t r a i n i n g in the enforcement of the Native Plant Law any agency reported
receiving was two hours i n 1977.
* The ten agencies surveyed were:
Phoenix Police Department Santa Cruz County S h e r i f f ' s Department
Maricopa County S h e r i f f ' s Cochise County S h e r i f f ' s Department
Department
Arizona Game and Fish Department Yuma County S h e r i f f ' s Department
Arizona Highway P a t r o l Pinal County S h e r i f f ' s Department
Graham County S h e r i f f ' s
Department
Pima County S h e r i f f ' s Department
A review of s t a f f u t i l i z a t i o n s t a t i s t i c s for the Native Plant Program revealed
t h a t no formal program e x i s t s t o t r a i n law enforcement agencies i n the
enforcement of the Native Plant Law. Available records indicate limited time
is spent on such training.
Current Penalties Are Too Light
Present penalties are not severe enough to d e t e r v i o l a t i o n s o f the Native Plant
Law. Currently, the first violation of the Native Plant Law is a c l a s s three
misdemeanor which c a r r i e s a maximum f i n e of $ 500 and a possible 30 day j a i l
sentence. Most fines are a c t u a l l y much smaller, however, and j a i l sentences
a r e rare.
Table 11 summarizes t h e p e n a l t i e s imposed for 125 convictions of Native Plant
violations during t h e t e n year period 1968- 1978.
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF PENALTIES IMPOSED FOR CONVICTIONS
OF VIOLATIONS OF THE NATIVE PLANT LAW
FROM 1968 THROUGH 1978
Penalty
Fines
Probation
J a i l Sentence
Totals
Number
108
Percent
87%
Source: Arizona Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e c a s e f i l e s .
A review of the 108 fines shown i n Table 11 revealed t h a t t h e f i n e s a r e i n many
cases small, especially when compared t o the market value of the plants t h a t
are taken. Although the average f i n e imposed was $ 87, i n one i n s t a n c e a man who
s t o l e $ 4,800 worth of c a c t i was convicted and fined only $ 55. In another
instance, more than $ 2,500 of c a c t i was taken and no fine was imposed.
The r e l a t i v e l y low fines faced by v i o l a t o r s , compared to the p o t e n t i a l l y high
market value of the plants taken, may actually be an incentive for persons to
commit Native P l a n t v i o l a t i o n s . Our review showed that 53 percent of the
persons convicted of Native Plant violations are subsequently re- convicted for
additional Native P l a n t v i o l a t i o n s . The number of convicted v i o l a t o r s t h a t
have continued t o v i o l a t e the Native Plant Law but escaped detection cannot be
determined.
According to s t a f f of the Attorney General's Office the penalties for Native
Plant Law violations are not severe enough to serve a s an e f f e c t i v e deterrent.
Further, both the Attorney General's s t a f f and Commission employees s t a t e d t h a t
county attorneys may be r e l u c t a n t to prosecute " less seriousn violations such
a s Native Plant cases. One solution t o t h i s problem would be to provide the
Commission with c i v i l enforcement powers f o r t h e Native Plant Law. Similar
powers have been recently given to the Banking Department and have been very
e f f e c t i v e i n reducing violations i n the banking area.
Civil enforcement powers would a u t h o r i z e t h e Commission to use the Attorney
General r a t h e r than the county attorneys to bring an action i n Superior Court
a g a i n s t v i o l a t o r s . Any person found t o have w i l l f u l l y violated the Native
Plant Law would be subject to a c i v i l penalty of up t o $ 5,000. This process
would allow the f i n e for v i o l a t i n g t h e Native Plant Law to be equal to, or
g r e a t e r than, the value of t h e p l a n t s taken. In addition, the Commission could
also obtain an injunction which would subject the repeat violator to both
contempt of court proceedings - and an additional c i v i l penalty of $ 10,000. The
members of the Attorney General's Office said experience with c i v i l enforcement
powers has shown t h a t violations of c o u r t i n j u n c t i o n s do r e s u l t i n severe fines
and j a i l sentences which have the e f f e c t of reducing repeat offenses.
S t a t e Seed Law
Arizona Revised S t a t u t e 3- 231 through ARS 3- 242 comprise the S t a t e Seed Law.
This law e s t a b l i s h e s l a b e l i n g requirements for " Each container of
a g r i c u l t u r a l , vegetable and ornamental plant seed s o l d , o f f e r e d for s a l e ,
exposed for s a l e o r transported within the s t a t e for sowing purposes ...." The
seed must be t r u t h f u l l y labeled and must show the r e s u l t s of a germination t e s t
performed no e a r l i e r than nine months before t h e d a t e of s a l e .
The Compliance Division of the Commission is responsible f o r t h e enforcement of
the S t a t e Seed Law. One of its employees serves a s the S t a t e Seed Inspector.
The inspector v i s u a l l y i n s p e c t s seed container l a b e l s and takes samples of
seeds for laboratory analysis t o determine compliance with the law. Our review
of the enforcement of the S t a t e Seed Law revealed t h a t present seed regulatory
actions are not s u f f i c i e n t t o discourage r e p e a t v i o l a t i o n s . ~ nforcement
effectiveness could be improved by p e r i o d i c a l l y publishing a list of violations
and those companies responsible for them.
Publishing Violations - Presently, the penalties imposed for v i o l a t i o n s o f
the S t a t e Seed Law are not an e f f e c t i v e deterrent. Seed law violations a r e
generally treated a l i k e , regardless of the number of times a company has
violated the law. If a violation is found, a " Stop- Saleu order is issued by the
S t a t e Seed Inspector who removes the seed from s a l e u n t i l label corrections are
made. After the label corrections are made the S t a t e Seed Inspector issues a
" releasev order and the seed can be sold.
An analysis of " Stop- Salen orders issued during 1977 and 1978 revealed t h a t
some companies are chronic v i o l a t o r s of the law and apparently not deterred by
the present " Stop- Sale" penalty. Table 12 summarizes, by company the number of
seed samples taken, the number of " Stop- Sale" orders issued, and the percentage
of " Stop- Salen orders issued to the number of seed samples taken during 1977
and 1978.
TABLE 12
SUMMARY, BY COMPANY,* OF THE NUMBER OF SEED
SAMPLES TAKEN, THE NUMBER OF " STOP- SALE"
ORDERS ISSUED AND THE PROPORTION OF
" STOP- SALE" ORDERS ISSUED TO THE NUMBER
OF SEED SAMPLES TAKEN DURING 1977 AND 1978
Proportion of
" Stop- Sale Orders
Number of Issued t o Number
Number of Seed Stop- Sale Orders of Seed Samples
Seed Company Samples Taken Issued Taken
Source: Data compiled by the Office of the Auditor General from Arizona
Commission o f Agriculture and Horticulture documents.
* Data was analyzed on companies having ten or more violations.
A s shown i n Table 12, some companies repeatedly v i o l a t e t h e Seed Law. For
example, nearly half of the samples taken for Seed Company Q revealed a
violation of the Seed Law.
A survey conducted by the Office of the Auditor General revealed t h a t 20 other
s t a t e s periodically publish lists of companies t h a t v i o l a t e those s t a t e s ' seed
laws. These lists are d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the seed industry and frequently
t o o f f i c i a l s in other s t a t e s . Table 13 summarizes the 20 s t a t e s t h a t publish
the names of companies t h a t v i o l a t e seed laws, the manner in which violaions
a r e publicized and o f f i c i a l responses regarding the e f f e c t publicizing
companies has on t h e i r seed control program.
TABLE 13
SUMMARY OF STATES THAT PUBLISH THE NAMES
OF COMPANIES THAT VIOLATE SEED LAWS, THE
MANNER I N WHICH VIOLATIONS ARE PUBLICIZED,
AND OFFICIAL RESPONSES REGARDING THE EFFECT
PUBLICIZING COMPANIES HAS ON THEIR
SEED CONTROL PROGRAM*
O f f i c i a l Responses
Regarding The E f f e c t
P u b l i c i z i n g Companies
Has On Their
Seed Control Prouram
S t a t e s That P u b l i c i z e The Manner
The Names Of Companies I n Which
That Violate S t a t e V i o l a t o r s Are
Seed Laws Publicized
1. Alabama Q u a r t e r l y Report I n c r e a s e s e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
2. Arkansas Monthly S t a t e P l a n t
Board News; 9,600
c i r c u l a t i o n
" The most e f f e c t i v e
c o n t r o l t o o l we have."
3. Colorado Annual Report No response given.
4. Connecticut Report on Findings I n c r e a s e s e f f e c t i v e n e s s
t o a degree.
5. F l o r i d a Q u a r t e r l y Laboratory
Report
I n c r e a s e s e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
6. Indiana Annual Report I n c r e a s e s e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
Used as a s a l e s t o o l
by seedmen.
7. Kentucky
8. Maryland
Annual Report " Very e f f e c t i v e . "
Department Reports and
News Releases
No response given.
9. Massachusetts
10. Nebraska
11. New J e r s e y
Annual P u b l i c a t i o n
Annual Laboratory Report
Annual Report
I n c r e a s e s e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
I n c r e a s e s e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
" D e f i n i t e l y i n c r e a s e s
e f f e c t i v e n e s s . "
12. North Carolina Department's A g r i c u l t u r e
Review
I n c r e a s e s e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
Seedmen p r e f e r f i n e s over
p u b l i c i t y .
13. North Dakota
14. Oklahoma
15. Pennsylvania
Annual P u b l i c a t i o n
Annual P u b l i c a t i o n
Annual Report
No response.
I n c r e a s e s e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
I n c r e a s e s e f f e c t i v e n e s s i f
repeat v i o l a t o r s .
16. Rhode I s l a n d
17. South Dakota
18. Utah
Annual P u b l i c a t i o n I n c r e a s e s e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
Annual Laboratory Report I n c r e a s e s e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
Annual Report d i s t r i b u t e d
t o seed d e a l e r s
No response.
19. V i r g i n i a Monthly Report I n c r e a s e s e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
Seedmen p r e f e r f i n e s
over p u b l i c i t y .
20. West Virginia Annual Laboratory Report
s e n t t o industry.
I n c r e a s e s e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
Source: Responses t o a survey o f s t a t e seed c o n t r o l programs conducted by the
Office o f t h e Auditor General.
A s shown in Table 13, A l l 16 of the S t a t e s t h a t responded to the question
regarding the effect publicizing companies has had on t h e i r seed control
program f e l t t h a t it improved t h e i r program's effectiveness. In f a c t , one a
s t a t e o f f i c i a l responded t h a t it was " the most e f f e c t i v e control t o o l we have."
The federal seed enforcement o f f i c i a l s also acknowledge the deterrent value of
publicizing company violation information. The United S t a t e s Department of ( I
Agriculture ( USDA) i s s u e s news releases on i n t e r s t a t e seed v i o l a t i o n s , and
provides copies o f the news releases to the Arizona Seed Inspector to forward
t o l o c a l newspapers. However, the Seed Inspector does not forward the USDA
news releases.
We also found the Arizona Office o f the S t a t e Chemist, an agency supervised by
the f i v e member Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture, publishes
the r e s u l t s of a l l feed, f e r t i l i z e r and pesticide samples taken by its a
inspectors during the year. A l l companies sampled are l i s t e d i n its annual
report along with the number of samples drawn and the number and types of
v i o l a t i o n s found. According to the S t a t e Chemist such a procedure has a
d e t e r r e n t e f f e c t . a
The Seed Inspector does not publish USDA or Arizona violations of seed laws
because he f e e l s it would harm t h e D i v i s i o n ' s working r e l a t i o n s h i p with seed
companies.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Greater enforcement of the Native Plant Law could be achieved through
t r a i n i n g and education of law enforcement o f f i c e r s i n t h i s law.
2. Current actions and penalties are i n e f f e c t i v e in d e t e r r i n g v i o l a t i o n s of
both the Native Plant law and the S t a t e Seed law.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Commission develop an on- going program to t r a i n law enforcement
o f f i c e r s on the s t a t e , county and c i t y l e v e l s i n Native Plant law.
2. The Legislature provide the Commission with c i v i l enforcement powers
s i m i l a r to those granted the Banking Department.
3. The S t a t e Seed Inspector publish and d i s t r i b u t e seed violation data on a
quarterly or annual basis. In order t o present the data f a i r l y , the t o t a l
number of seed samples taken from each company and the seriousness or type
of v i o l a t i o n s should be included.
FINDING V
STATUTORY CHANGES ARE NEEDED TO ELIMINATE OBSOLETE AND UNNECESSARY
REQUIREMENTS AND DUPLICATION OF EFFORT.
Our review of the Arizona Commission o f Agriculture and Horticulture revealed
several needed s t a t u t o r y changes t o eliminate obsolete and unnecessary
requirements and duplication of e f f o r t . The s t a t u t e s t h a t should be amended
a r e :
1. Sale of Citrus Fruit ( ARS 3- 551 e t seq.)
2 . Quarantine Radius of Infected Apiaries ( ARS 3- 803. B)
3. Date Standardization Inspections ( ARS 3- 471 e t seq.)
Sale O f Citrus Fruit
Sections 3- 551 through 3- 555" o f t h e Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s make it unlawful
t o buy or sell c i t r u s f r u i t a t the wholesale l e v e l without a record or invoice
of t h e s a l e . Furthermore, the invoice is to be preserved for s i x months a t the
place where the c i t r u s f r u i t is offered f o r r e s a l e and s h a l l be available f o r
inspection by law enforcement o f f i c e r s and persons desiring to purchase the
f r u i t . The Commission is charged with the administration and enforcement of
t h i s a r t i c l e including supplying f r u i t dealers with appropriate forms.
Neither the S t a t e Entomologist nor the Supervisor of Inspection is enforcing
these provisions. They do not know t h e o r i g i n a l i n t e n t of these s t a t u t e s and
doubt the provisions have ever been enforced. The Supervisor of Inspection
f e e l s t h a t the o r i g i n a l i n t e n t was t o discourage c i t r u s t h e f t s . In e a r l i e r
years, much f r u i t was sold d i r e c t l y from groves t o f r u i t stands; by requiring
invoices of s a l e to be kept, t h e f t s from groves might be discouraged.
Commission personnel see no current need f o r t h e s e s t a t u t e s .
Quarantine Radius O f Infected Apiaries
Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s 3- 803. B is unnecessary and unreasonable and should be
amended to eliminate the three- mile quarantine radius requirement.
* Appendix E contains a f u l l t e x t of ARS 3- 551 through 3- 555.
Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s 3- 803. B requires immediate quarantine of a l l a p i a r i e s
within a three- mile radius of an apiary found infected with American Foul Brood
disease and s t a t e s ,
" Bees s h a l l not be moved i n t o or out o f the quarantined
d i s t r i c t without written permission from the inspector."
This provision has become unnecessary and unreasonable according to both the
S t a t e Apiary Inspector and the President o f the Arizona Beekeepers'
I
Association. Modern chemical treatment techniques can e f f e c t i v e l y prevent the
spread of American Foul Brood t o nearby colonies without applying a quarantine
radius. Also, i n normal beekeeping operations hives must be moved several
times a year t o follow the " honey flow" or be moved on an emergency basis t o
a
avoid pesticide damage.
Currently, the three- mile quarantine radius is not being applied or enforced a
and compliance would create unnecessary hardship on beekeepers.
Data Standardization Inspections
Sections 3- 471 through 3- 476 should be amended t o eliminate duplication of a
e f f o r t between the S t a t e Entomologist and the Supervisor of Inspection.
S t a t e law provides for dates t o be inspected to ensure that they meet standards
of quality. Arizona Revised S t a t u t e 3- 471" e t seq. gives t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a
for t h e s e d a t e s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n i n s p e c t i o n s to the S t a t e Entomologist. Yet ARS
3- 486" gives the same authority t o the Supervisor of Inspection. A s a r e s u l t ,
d a t e i n s p e c t i o n s are performed by employees of both the S t a t e Entomologist and
the Supervisor of Inspection. Inspectors from both agencies v i s i t many of the a
same establishments for these inspections. The amount of duplication that is
occurring cannot be determined due to a lack of adequate records, however, any
duplication is wasteful and should be discontinued.
* Appendix F contains the f u l l t e x t of ARS 3- 471 and 3- 486 et seq.
Officials in both agencies are agreeable to shifting responsibility for data
standardization inspections to the Supervisor of Inspection. This would place
all fruit and vegetable standardization duties under the Supervisor of
Inspection and eliminate duplication.
CONCLUSION
Several statutory changes are needed to eliminate obsolete and unnecessary
requirements and duplication of effort.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Arizona Revised Statutes 3- 551 through 3- 555 be repealed.
2. Arizona Revised Statute 3- 803 be amended to eliminate quarantine radius
requirements.
3. Arizona Revised Statutes 3- 471 through 3- 476 be amended to transfer
responsibility for date standardization to the Supervisor of Inspection.
D
Arizona ( ommission of
Agriculture and Horticulture
1688 WEST ADAMS PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007 * ( 602) 255- 4373
September 1 4 , 1979
Douglas R. Norton, Auditor General
112 North Central, Suite 600
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Dear Mr. Norton,
I have had a chance t o review t h e d r a f t of the " Performance Audit of the
Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture". Your s t a f f i s t o be con-mended
for a job well done. Iiowever, I would take t h i s opportunity t o make a
f es. 7 observations.
The Quarantine program is not of a routine nature. It requires careful
observation, good judgment, and a basic background in the Plant and Plant ?? st
Sciences. I believe a more in- depth audit should be carried out in regard t o
Finding 11. I believe t h i s audit would indicate t h a t the Arizona Commission
of Agriculture and Horticulture should be used t o perform truck inspections a t
t h e f i v e border s t a t i o n s for the Motor Vehicle Division rather than the other
way around.
In Finding 111, under Nursery Services, there is no mention t h a t Arizona
does not require quality standard of nursery p l a n t m a t e r i a l . Not only do many
other s t a t e s charge fees, but they also have what is knom s s " a dead and dying
law". This addition t o Arizona's program would require no additional manpower
but does require l e g i s l a t i o n .
It i s our experience t h a t publicizing " Stop- Sale Orders" as indicated in
Finding IV under State Seed Law, w i l l not aid in law enforcement nor be i n the
public i n t e r e s t . We take the lead t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e has provided i n Section
3- 240, A. R. S. , t h a t " the commission s h a l l publish any informat ion oertinent t o
the issuance of the judgment by the court ...". Complaints of poor q u a l i t y seed
would be a good measure of the effectiveness of the enforcement of t h i s law, and
these types of complaints a r e r a r e .
Again i n find in^ I V under Native Plant Law Enforcement, we have an excel-l
e n t record of cooperating and working with the law enforcement agencies of
Arizona. In f a c t , during 1978 our records indicate t h a t more than 175 hours
were spent i n t r a i n i n g these cooperators. We published an i n s e r t for law en-forcement
o f f i c e r s ' notebooks i n October 1978. Over 5,000 copizs of t h i s 23
page supplement have been d i s t r i b u t e d .
Thank you for the opportu2ity t o review the draPt of the Performance : ludit
and t o make these comments.
Sincerely,
/ James F. Carter
3 i r r c t o r
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MOTOR VEHICLE D I V I S I O N
BRUCE BABBITT
Governor
WILLIAM A. ORDWAY
Director
1801 West Jefferson Street, Phoenix. Arizona
MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. Box 2100, Phoenix, Arizona 85001
September 6 , 1979
PHILIP lHORNEY(: ROFT
Asstslant D~ rector
The Honorable Douglas R. Norton, CPA
Auditor General
S t a t e o f Arizona
S u i t e 600
112 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Dear M r . Norton :
Thank you f o r the o p p o r t u n i t y to read and comment on the
f i n d i n g s o f your a u d i t o f the Arizona Commission o f A g r i c u l t u r e
and H o r t i c u l t u r e t h a t p e r t a i n s t o the p o r t - o f - e n t r y s t a t i o n s
occupied j o i n t l y b y the Commission and this D i v i s i o n .
W e enjoy an e x c e l l e n t rapport w i t h Director James Carter
and his s t a f f and have d i s c u s s e d the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f merging our
o p e r a t i o n s more c l o s e l y a s is suggested in your r e p o r t , and believe
it t o be a proper and a p p r o p r i a t e s t e p t o t a k e .
The Motor V e h i c l e Division i s c u r r e n t l y l o o k i n g a t ways and
means o f improving our o v e r a l l a c t i v i t i e s a t t h e p o r t s , w i t h
s p e c i a l emphasis on expanding our w e i g h t e n f o r c e m e n t f u n c t i o n .
I believe your recommendations f i t r i g h t into our i d e a s , b u t would
suggest t h a t the proposed i n t e r - a g e n c y agreement ( a f t e r a p p r o p r i a t e
l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y is o b t a i n e d ) be expanded t o i n c l u d e the major
p o r t s a s well a s the five s t a t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d in your r e p o r t . I
do not suggest t h a t a l l personnel a t the l a r g e r p o r t s be t r a n s f e r r e d
t o MVD, and perhaps none o f them, b u t by agreement, MVD personnel
could be given the a u t h o r i t y and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o v e r i f y l o a d s being
t r a n s p o r t e d and r e f e r the a p p r o p r i a t e d r i v e r s to the Commission
employees a s n e c e s s a r y . T h i s would d o v e t a i l neat1 y w i t h our c u r r e n t
t h i n k i n g f o r port m o d i f i c a t i o n s aimed a t i n c r e a s i n g t r a f f i c flow
through the port w h i l e a l s o i n c r e a s i n g weight c o n t r o l .
Again, thanks f o r the o p p o r t u n i t y t o comment. /,
Motor V e h i c l e ~ i v i s i o n
I) HIGHWAYS . AERONAUTICS . MOTOR VEHICLE PUBLIC TRANSIT ' ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES . TRANSPORTATION PLANNtNG
5 4
APPENDIX A
4
THE CONSULTING ENTOMOLOGISTS'
REPORT ON THE NEED FOR1
THE INSPECTION STATIONS
AND
RESUMES DETAILING THE CONSULTANTS'
QUALIFICATIONS
M r . Douglas R. Norton, CPA
Auditor General, State of Arizona
Suite 600
112 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AX 85004
Dear Mr. Norton:
A t your request we have revieved the border ~ u a r a n t i n e inspection program
of the S t a t e of Arizona. We discussed goals and procedures with Arizona
Comission of Agriculture and Horticulture o f f i c i a l s , observed operation
of the inspection s t a t i o n a t San Simon, and examined various documents
pertaining t o the program. We were received courteously and given f u l l
cooperation by every S t a t e employee we contacted.
Our principal conclusions and recornendations are as follows.
. L. "~- n equ arantine prcgraa i s needed 55 ArL? nnr. Pests of a p o t e n t i a l l y
s e r i o u s n a t u r e are continually being intercepted a t the borders.
2. E e present inspection proqram i s weak. Fewer than half of the raw
f r u i t s and vegetabxes and l i v i n g p l a n t s crossing t h e borders i n
private vehic1es: are being intercepted.
3. The program can be strenqthened bv modifying inspection procedures.
Many options f o r modification can be considered. But a f t e r weighing
such f a c t o r s a s cost effectiveness, incr? ased deterrency, and
minimal interference with t h e t r a v e l i n g public, we favor eliminating
" verbal inspections" of vehicles and establishing instead a systen
of ElONITORED VOr. ULUTARY COEPLIANCE .
4. The inspection program could be f u r t h e r strengthened by inoroving
i t s supporting s e r v i c e s . ( i n t r a s t a t e detection survey, laboratory
services, and data accumulation and r e t r i e v a l ) . We reconmend:
a. Separating the detection survey program from pesticide use
reporting.
b. Adding a b i o l o g i s t to the Division of Test Control to a s s i s t
i n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n work and i n the development of s t a t i s t i c a l
and biological data on quarantined pests.
c. Developing a convenient computer system f o r storing, r e t r i e v i n g ,
and analyzing s i g n i f i c a n t data.
Our complete report, together with f u r t h e r remdrks of individual members of
the consulting team, w i i l be forthcoming under separate cover.
Sincerely yours, - 7
&,<-.. \ 7: c-- a =.. . c. -
Glenn E. Carman
R., Duncan Carter
I
>
John V. Osmun
M r . Douglas R. Norton, CPA
Auditor General, State of Arizona
Suite 600
112 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Dear Plr. Norton:
The c o q l e t e report of our review of the Arizona border quarantine
ins7ection program, together with f u r t h e r remarks of individual members
of the consulting team, is enclosed.
- rv. c- G-- p- Y-- L C ~ ; a t cth e - Y--.- v-+ yIV-- A:*. -.-- ..- LJ 25 L ~ F . T ~ ~ 3 1o_ fe t h S~ pa te of
ArLzona, and we hope our report w i l l prove informative and useful.
Sincerely yours,
it;-\ . - -\ -.-*--\ i- ,* v--- cuzc
Glenn E. Carman
/ ' - JB A%+. . .
R. Duncan Carter
Encl .
7/ 22/ 79
REVIEW OF THE ARIZONA Q U M m E R? SPECTLOI? PROGRAM
MAY 8- 10, 1979
Glenn E. Carman L! R. Duncan Carter Z[ and John V. Osmun - 31
- Introduc- tion
A t the request of Douglas R. Norton, CPA, Auditor General of the State. of
Arizona, we have reviewed the Arizona border quarantjne iuspectioa prograo.
Ouring the period May 8- 10, 1979, we conferred with o f f i c i a l s of the
Arizona Conmission of Agriculture and Horticulture in Phoenix, and observed
the operation of the inspection s t a t i o n a t San Siaan. We examined numerous
documents ( listed i n Append* I) pertai. ning to the progxarn.
We proceeded i n our evaluation on the premise that the program should be
consistent - with the definition of plant quarantine established by the
Natioaal Plant Board2! We found that i n general the elements of a souo&
quaranti, nc program are present: proper f y Icicatsd inspec tion stations,
expertensed personnel, a positive a t t i t u d e on the paxt of the Director,
a pest i d e n t i f i c a t i o n service, chemical and other control procedures,
and a survey and dstectlon program. Wft believe improvements can be made
i n procedures a t inspection stations, i n pest i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and i n the
degree of sophistication of the survey system, In addition, the methods
used t o accumulate and r e t r i e v e pertinent s t a t i s t i c a l and biological
data need updating t o make them cost- effective and to increase usefulness
of the data i n mnaging the quaranthe program. Derails of these points
are discussed i n our conclusions and recommendations below.
We were received cou~ teously and given f u l l cooperation by every Sfate
ernployee we contacted. William Thoason of the Auditor General's o f f i c e
was especially h e l p f u l , Our principal contacts i n addFtion. ta Mr. Thornson
were: James R. Carter, Director, Arizona Comission of Ag~ ic117tu1. aen d
Horticulture, and Stace Entomologist; Orval A . Vaughan and John A. Bedford,
Assistant Directors; Judson E. May, Systematic Entomologist for the
Commission; D~ uglas R, Norton, Auditor General; and Jerry t4ills and
Steve Tlnacker,, office of the Auditor General.
L1~ epartment of Entomology, University of California, River side, CA
/ corporate Agricultural Research, Del Monte Corporation, San Leandro, CA
? - / ~ e ~ a r t m e noft Entomology, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN
L/ DZFINITION: A quarantine is a r e s t r i c t i o n , imp- ed by- duly constituted
a u t h o r i t i e s , whereby the production, movement or existence of plants,
plant products, animals, animal products, or any other a r t i c l e or material,
or the normal a c t i v i t y of persons, is brought under regul; ation, i n order
that the introduction or spread of a pest may be prevented or limited, or
i n order that a pest already introduced nay be controlled or eradicated',
thereby reducing or avoiding losses that would otherwise occur through
damage done by the pest or through a continuing of control measures.
Conclusions and r~ comendations
TlE QUARANTINE PROGitW IS NEEDED I N ARIZONA, Records examined show t h a t
pests of a p o t e n t i a l l y serious nature are continually being intercepted
a t the borders.
The topography of Arizona tends to discourage natural introduction of
pests. But there are many significant pests t h a t could be introduced
througlr automobile and r e l a t e d t r a f f i c . The t h r e a t of introduction in
t h i s manner is s u b s t a n t i a l , because the State is not only a t t r a c t i v e t o
t o u r i s t s i t s e l f but serves as a thoroughfare f o r i n t e r s t a t e and international
travel. Once introduced, the pests would be favored by cropping systems
and agronomic practices i n the f e r t i l e areas of the State, Recognizing
t& se f a c t o r s as long ago as 1920, a l e r t entomslogists were convinced of
( I
ths value of quarantine measures and established t h e f i r s t inspection
s t a t i o n . Today there are 10 s t a t i o n s , and t h e i r d e t e r r e n t value has been
documented,
We l i v e i n an age when there is much public and s c i e n t i f i c apprehension
about the use of toxic substances i n the environnent~ Not needing to
a
contra1 pests by applying pesticides is an increasingly important benefit
af an effect2v" e quarantine program. The use of chenical pesticides i n
Arizona c o t ~ l di ncrease s i g n i f i c a r ~ t l yi f , f o r example, the c i t r u s red scale,
citrus nite, boll weevil, and various pecan insects were introduced and
established as econonic pests. •
THE PXZSEBT INSPECTION P R G G M IS WEAK. The quality of the quarantine
inspection prograrc has eroded i n recent years. Vehicle Fnspections,
especially trunk inspections, have been reCuced gradually as the number
of vehicles has increased and new types of vehicles ( e. g., RV's) which
compound inspection procedures have been introduced. Fiscal constraints
and the ever- present reluctance to invade people's privacy have also
contrtbuted t o the decline. The records exanined suggest t h a t fewer than
half of the raw f r u i t s and vegetables and living p l a n t s crossing the
borders are now being intercepted.
THE E K G C~ AB BE STRENGTHENED BY EODIFY~ G S PECT TIC IN P R O C E D ~ ~ S . M any a
options f o r modification, some of which are outlined below, can be
considered. But a f t e r weighing such f a c t o r s as cost effectiveness,
increased deterrency, and minimal interference with the traveling public,
we favor eliminating " verbal inspections" of vehicles an6 establishing
instead a system of PIQNITORED VOI; XT?' ARY COMPLIANCE.
P'aving concluded t h a t there are cogent and substantive reasons to continue
a plant quarantine program i n Arizona with provisions for border inspections,
and that present procedures are inadequate to provide an e f f e c t i v e and
supportable level of deterrency and/ or exclusjon, we i d e n t i f i e d a number of
procedural options for consideration. The l l s t i n g of options i n the ensuing
discussion does not r e f l e c t our p r i o r i t y of recornendation, but simply an a
orderly approach t o our analysis of each option.
A. Reversion to intensive border inspection program a
A l l major access highways would have border inspection s t a t i o n s . The
s t a t i o n s would be in operation a t a l l times, and each entering vehicle
would be f u l l y inspected. Such a program should provide maxim^
protection ar. d benefit. On the negative s i d e , t h i s program would
require substarttially greater budgetary support. For t h a t reason and 0
because of the adverse reactions of the public to inconvenience,
loss of tine, and intrusion of privacy, to revert to an intensive
border inspection program would necessitate overcoming powerful * f : - .
disincentives t o gain public and governmental acceptance,
B. Intensive border inspection a t the Continental Divide
Stare and/ or Federal agencies would suppart and operate inspectian
s t a t i o n s a t an approach to each major highway crossing of the
Continental Divide. The s t a t i o n s would be i n operation a t a l l
t i n e s and the inspectFoa procedures would be thorough. The nwber
of Continental Divide s t a t i o n s t h a t would be required is ahout the
same a s t h e number required f o r an optimal program i n the State sf
Arizons alone. Since benefits would accrue to many States, the
operation would be most appropriately and effectively fund.& and
administered by the Federal government..
Any quarantine needs existing between States on either s i d e of the
Continental Divide would require lacaP programs of the type now
used a t the Arizona- California border, But border inspections a t
the Continental Divide would save Arizona most sf the present cast
of operating the eastern border stations.
C. Full inspection program only a t major border s t a t i a n s
A l l Arizona border s t a t i o n s would be maintained or placed back in
operation, But only the four or five major entry points would have
s t a t i o n s i n operation a t a l l times and with the requirement f o r complete
inspection of a l l v e h i c l e s . The remaining stations would be open on the
basis of unannaunced schedulings and with variable degrees of cornplet, O ness
of inspection, A l l s t a t i o n s \& en i n opsration would carry out a f u l l
inspection of trucks. Intercepffons a t the major s t a t i o n s would be
maximized by r t g i d inspection requirements. Public inconvenience and
antagonism would be minimized by providing sufficient inspection lanes
and inspector personnel to l i m i t the rime r e q u i r e d for the clearance of
each entering vehicle. Operation of the minor s t a t i o n s would contribute
t o the number of interceptions but such stations would primarily functLon
t o discourage the movement of unacceptable plant material by infomed
people, and t o prevent purposeful routings through rhe minor entry points
as a means of by- passing inspections a t major s t a t i a n s , The deterrency
value of the minor s t a t i o n s would be enhadced t o the degree that entering
drivers and occupants were f u l l y informed of the regulations and penalties
assessable f o r violations, and to the degree that the drrvers had
previously observed the thorough, serious- minded, and exemplary op? rations
a t the major border s t a t i o n s . The cost of operating- under t h i s option
would be greater than t h e c o s t of current operations.
0. Rotating s t a t i o n operations
A l l border s t a t i o n s that have been or may be established would be
naintained i n an operational mode as i n option C. kt only on? or two
would be conductizg inspections a t any one t i m e . Rotation of the stations
operating would be scheduled a t random. A l l inspections would be thoroush
and on a 24- hour basis during the operational period for a station.
I n t e r c e p t i o n s would be a t an e f f e c t i v e l e v e l a t a s t a t i o n in operation
but the value of the program would l a r g e l y depend on the deterrency
f a c t o r . Overall c o s t s would be l e s s than the costs f o r option C. Eut
management and l o g i s t i c a l problems would be encountered i n constantly
t r a n s f e r r i n g persocn21 from s t a t i o n t o s t a t l o n .
E. Voluntary compliance with random s e l e c t i o n of o t h e r v e h i c l e s t o be
subjected t o inspection (? 5~ nitoredV oluntary Compliance)
A l l border s t a t i o n s that have been or may be established would be
operated a t a l l times and a l l truck t r a f f i c would be f u l l y monitored.
A3 e s s e n t i a l provision would be a separation lane f o r cars whose
d r i v e r s v o l u n t a r i l y subnit t o a thorough inspection or v o l u n t a r i . 1 ~
subnit m a t e r i a l f o r inspection. A c e r t a i n number of randomly selected
c a r s f r o m among those n o t v o l u n t a r i l y submitting t o Snspeccion would
be subjected t o a thorough inspection. Selection would be made by an
e l e c t r o n i c o r o t h e r randomizing device, and d r i v e r s would be told how
they a r e s e l e c t e d . Frequency of these involuntary inspections would
be v a r i a b l e . Various arrangements could be made to channel any car
selected f o r irrvoluntary inspection i n t o an operational area while
permitting c a r s n o t s e l e c t e d for inspection t o pass through the s t a t i o n
without stopping.
To function smoothly and with reasonable public acceptance, a system
would, need t o be developed t o provide d r i v e r s with advance n o t i f i c a t i o n
of the quarantine requirements and p e n a l t i e s , and of the likelihood of
being subjected t o a very thorough inspection. This could be
accomplished most e f f e c t i v e l y with an appropriate " Burma Shave"
sequence of highway signs i n reduced- speed zones leading to the
inspection s t a t i o n s . More complete information could also be provided
on Arizona highway naps, on hishway r e s t a r e a p o s t e r s , and on hand- out
brochures made a v a i l a b l e a t or n e a r t h e inspection s t a t t o n s .
This procedure would r e l y s i g n i f i c a n t l y on a clear understanding on the
p a r t of the public t h a t f i n e s o r o t h e r p e n a l t i e s would be imposed if
c a r s s e l e c t e d f o r involuntary inspection are found t o be carrying
contraband. Voluntary disclosure or submission t o inspection would
exempt d r i v e r s and o t h e r occupants from p e n a l t i e s . The mechanical,
random s e l e c t i o n f o r involuntary inspection would contribute greatly
t o public acceptance of border inspections because it would prevent
any delay f o r most c a r s , while providing a basis f o r greater and more
t o l e r a n t acceptance on the part of persons subjected t o a f u l l
inspection ( owing t o the underlying " you win some and you lose some"
a t t i t u d e of the public when there is a reasanable chance of not being
inconvenienced), To promote such a t t i t u d e s it would be e s s e n t i a l for
the public t o krlav t h a t th? s e l e c t i o n was purely a t random and not
corltrolled by an inspector.
Option E is t h e nost c o s t - e f f e c t i v e of t h e options considered, and it
shoul- d be given high p r i o r i t y in d e l i b e r a t i o n s on the future of the
border i n s p e c t i o a program.
F. Voluntary compliance with inspector s e l e c t i o n of vehicles to be
subjected to involuntary inspec tion.
This procedure would u t i l i z e the basic concept of option E with
respect to voluntary compliance. But inspectors -- not a randomizing
device -- would determine which cars to subject t o iQvoluntary
inspection.. Each vehicle not voluntarily submitting to inspection
would be required t~ stap f o r preliminary questioni, ng and inspector
appraisal.
Option F would not require a randomizing system or vehicle counters.
Bclt it would be l e s s cost- effective than opriorl E would be, because
it would require more inspectors' t i m e .
Discussion
We appreciate t h a t many f a c t o r s must be considered i n detennj- ning the
f e a s i b i l i t y of i n s t i t u t i n g any s e t of procedures f o r effective, yet
workable and acceptable management of a quarantine operation of this
kiod. Experienced quaraatine o f f i c e r s can best make such judgments
and deteminations, and the l i s t i n g of options above, while not entirely
conprehensive, detailed, or inclusive, is provided for t h e i r professional
evaluation. Such evaluation should be made i n the l i g h t of our vi, ews
t h a t :
1. There is a continui. ng need and j u s t i f i c a t f o n f o r quarantine
measures to minimize or prevent the introduction of economic
p l a n t p e s t s i n t o Arizona which have the potential to cause
extensive damage and production losses.
2. Inadeqtaate budgetary support and/ or the lack af public acceptance
of the functional aspects of the program have brought about
procedural'changes which have ( a) redueed the effectiveness of the
border inspection operations below acceptable standards and ( b)
prompted c r i t i c i s i n that the program is not s u f f i c i e n t l y protective
of Arizona's i n t e r e s t s ta j u s t i f y the residual support level.
3. There is a need therefore to reinforce program effectiveness by
budgetary augmentation i f required and by means to achieve the
desirable program objectives with the l e a s t inconvenience to or
antagonism of the public a t large.
For the reasons stated abwe and with recognitton t h a t option A represents
an a r b i t r a r y ahd a t t h i s t i m e unattainable standard, we believe it w i l l be
most useful to emphastze the following points f o r consideration:
1. Reliance must be placed to a major degree on deterr@ ncy.
2. Deterrency effectiveness i s dependent upon adequate and timely
information to the public of the needs, the regulations, and the
penalties i n r e l a t i o n to quarantines, and upon the v i s i b l e invocation
of penalty provisions when violations are committed.
3. Posting readable ( and conceivably poly- lingual) signs i n reduced- speed
zones i n to approaches to inspection stations may be the most p r a c t i c a l
means of informing v e h i c l e d r i v e r s and occupants of the quarantine
requirements, procedural options, and consequences of non- compliance,
f. Iore d e t a i l e d information, including an explanation of reasons f o r
the quarantine requirements, should be provided by other means such
a s handouts made a v a i l a b l e a t or near the inspection s t a t i o n s .
4, Statutory provisions must be made for p e n a l t i e s , and the public must
be n o t i f i e d t h a t such provisions a r e invoked against v i o l a t o r s .
5. With the foregoing in place and i n force, then a c o s t - e f f e c t i v e
o p e r a t i o n a l program w i l l need to be i n s t i t u t e d which ~ a x i m i z e s the
a c t u a l quarantine v h i l e minimizing i n t r u s i o n s on the time and privacy
of the cooperating public.
6 . The options considera3 above a r e not mutually exclusive and could be
used i n combination. For example, option E cculd be chosen as the
standard procedure, but reinforced by complete inspections of a l l
v e h i c l e s on a r o t a t i n g s t a t i o n b a s i s as i n option D.
7, % tion 3, moving the eastern quarantine inspection t o the Continental
Divide, appears t o be e s p e c i a l l y favorable f o r the reasons discussed,
I f option B is a t t a i n a b l e , then the remaining quarantine needs
between Arizona and adjacent S t a t e s could be met by other progras
options. Option E appears most promising a s a complenent to option a
B or, i f option B is not a t t a i n a b l e a t t h i s t i n e , a s the Statewide
standard procedure.
- 8. We emphasize t h a t whatever options are chosen, no c l a s s of vehicle
including r e c r e a t i o n a l vehicles or buses should be exempt from
i n s p e c t i o n requirements a t any time of day or nigh