Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Biosecurity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public advocate says USDA sidelined Bee County’s screwworm sterilization proposal
Summary
Frank Massey told Bee County commissioners the county’s plan to repurpose a former plant for a sterile‑screwworm facility had merit but that USDA officials said a Bee County satellite was "too late" and lacked funding; Massey urged continued local engagement.
Frank Massey, a local project advocate, told the Bee County Commissioners Court on July 13 that a plan to repurpose a former Pioneer plant near Pawnee into a sterilization facility for New World screwworms had promise but that federal agencies have not supported the idea.
Massey described a June 30 walk-through with USDA officials and construction and biosecurity consultants and said Rear Admiral Michael Schmoyer of the USDA told the coalition that a Bee County satellite “was too late in the scheme of things” and that USDA lacked funds to support such a facility. Massey said Schmoyer also mentioned the federal preference for cobalt‑60 radiation over the county’s proposed e‑beam sterilization and warned that cobalt‑60 could take “up to 2 years to [be] ready for approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” Massey said USDA officials told the group that a larger, fast‑tracked facility elsewhere aimed to come online by November 2027.
Massey told commissioners he and local partners had pursued the project for about a year, assembled a team of elected officials and biosecurity experts, and worked with Conoco to make the Pawnee facility available. He said, however, that federal investments in Mexico and other sites had reduced USDA interest in supporting Bee County: “USDA spent $221,000,000 in Mexico to revive … fruit fly sterilization facility” and “they spent over $350,000,000 at COPEC,” Massey said, arguing that those investments meant USDA would not draw from Bee County’s proposed operation.
The county’s presiding officer thanked Massey for the update, saying the court shared his disappointment and thought USDA had made “a mistake” in not pursuing Bee County as a partner. Commissioners did not take formal action at the meeting; Massey described the presentation as his final report on the initiative.
Why it matters: Massey framed the project as a local response to an agricultural biosecurity threat; if federal or state support emerged, a local facility could affect county land use, public‑health protocols, and potential federal oversight. For now, Massey said USDA funding and technical choices have left Bee County on the outside of the federal plan.
What’s next: Commissioners received the report during public comment and did not vote on any grant or development action at this meeting. Massey urged continued engagement with state and federal partners.
