Environmental NGOs have sued EPA in a Seattle, Washington federal district court claiming that EPA has not taken any steps to implement the measures recommended in NMFS’ ESA consultation biological opinions for diazinon, malathion, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl. Dow AgroSciences and CropLife America intervened in the case, and filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in it.
EPA has filed a response supporting the industry intervenors’ motion and arguing that the case should be dismissed on standing grounds. EPA’s response states in part:
“EPA concurs with Intervenors’ argument concerning Article III standing, and notes that standing is a threshold issue that must be resolved before the Court considers the merits of Plaintiffs’ claim. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992); see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 102-03 (1998). Here, Plaintiffs have failed to make any allegation concerning their purported interest in any of the particular salmonid Evolutionarily Significant Units (“ESUs”) at issue in the two biological opinions (“BiOps”) at the heart of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Nor have Plaintiffs alleged the existence of a nexus between their purported interest in those ESUs and harm resulting from the application of any of the six pesticides at issue in the BiOps. The Court should accordingly enter judgment for the Defendant.”
● Click here to read EPA’s response