By KEVIN WALKER
Michigan Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and other groups have intervened in a lawsuit brought against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over how the agency deals with pesticides and their effects on endangered species.

The lawsuit in question, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) v. EPA, was filed on May 30, 2007. It alleged when the EPA approved certain pesticides for consumer or agricultural use, it didn’t consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Marine Fisheries Service to determine if the pesticide in question might harm one or more endangered species.

The CBD says this consultation is required under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

“This case aims to use the Endangered Species Act to impose restrictions, if not outright bans, on hundreds of pesticides,” said AFBF President Robert Stallman on March 28. “To protect the interests of growers nationwide who rely on the availability of safe, affordable and effective pesticides, we have sought to intervene in the lawsuit in order to participate fully in how the case is resolved.

“The pesticides listed in the complaint have already been approved by EPA as safe for use under stringent federal pesticide laws. If consultation between EPA and the Services is required, then EPA should move forward with that process. But farmers should not be denied the use of important pest control products to protect their crops, in the meantime.”

According to the original complaint brought by the CBD, if a species is endangered under the ESA, each federal agency is required to make sure all its activities are done in accordance with the ESA, and establishes consultation processes in which federal agencies have to engage in order to make sure their activities don’t harm such a species.

It stated the EPA hadn’t done that with regard to a number of species that exist in northern California. The lawsuit identified 11 species that live in the San Francisco Bay area and identified 75 pesticides as potential hazards. In a Federal Register notice published July 1, 2009, the EPA announced it had reached an agreement with CBD to review each pesticide and its possible effects on any protected species that lives in that area.

This includes eight California counties, including Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma. It calls these reviews “effects determinations.”

The EPA is supposed to complete its review of all the pesticides by June 30, 2014.

If a pesticide is determined to present a hazard to a protected species, it could result in restrictions on its use in those areas; so far, it’s not clear if any pesticide has been restricted because of the lawsuit. If a pesticide is determined to have “no effect,” then that will be the end of the matter for that pesticide.

The AFBF and other agricultural groups are concerned about the expansive nature of the lawsuit. In his statement, Stallman said the CBD is trying to restrict the use of pesticides while these consultations are taking place, and that the suit could leave these products in a kind of legal limbo for years.