Judge rejects Bush decision on pesticides
Ruling says that weakening of rules lacks scientific justification
By GENE JOHNSON
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
A federal judge in Seattle rejected on Thursday a Bush administration decision to weaken rules governing pesticide use. He said the change reflected a "total lack" of scientific justification and that there were "disturbing indications" the administration deliberately muted dissent from government scientists. It was the second time in recent years that U.S. District Judge John Coughenour chastised federal agencies for failing to follow the Endangered Species Act in licensing pesticides for sale.
In 2001, environmental groups sued over the Environmental Protection Agency's failure to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before allowing certain pesticides to be sold. Coughenour ordered the EPA to conduct such consultations in determining whether 55 of the pesticides were likely to harm salmon. Instead, in 2004, the administration created a new rule allowing it to ignore the "consultation" requirement of the Endangered Species Act -- a part of the law it had been ignoring for at least a decade. With hundreds of pesticides and endangered species across the country, requiring multiple agencies to agree on their potential effect could be a logistical nightmare; officials reasoned the EPA should decide on its own whether pesticides were likely to harm protected species.
The environmental groups sued again, and on Thursday, Coughenour threw out the new rule, saying the government could not simply ignore the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The likely result would be harm to protected species, he said. "The administrative record is striking in its total lack of any evidence of technical or scientific support for the policy positions ultimately adopted," Coughenour wrote.He noted that in 2004 the EPA asked fisheries service scientists to support its findings that 28 pesticides were not likely to harm protected species.
The agency's Washington state office did not agree in any of the 28 cases, according to an internal fisheries service letter. Nevertheless, that agency and Fish and Wildlife agreed to the rules change "knowing of the substantial flaws in EPA's methodologies and knowing that these flaws were highly likely (if not certain) to result in an overall under-protection of listed species," the judge said. In a footnote, Coughenour added, "The court feels compelled to note that there are disturbing indications in the record that the very structure of the service-EPA cooperation was engineered (by EPA) to conceal or minimize the positional differences between the services and EPA."
more:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/282556_pesticides25.htmlLet's hear it for those conservative judges- the ones that actually read and follow the laws!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
