CBD v. US Fish and Wildlife Service et al.

Reference :

4:22-cv-00090-JCH

Complaint date :

February 24, 2022

Status :

Not judged

Place of jurisdiction :

United States, Arizona

Plaintiffs types :

Environmental NGOs

Plaintiffs names :

Center for Biological Diversity

Defendants :

Fish and Wildlife Service, Deb Haaland (secretary of the U.S department of the interior)

Lawyers for Health and Environmental Justice :

Stephanie Parent

Case nature :

Administrative

Specificities :

Civil action for injunctive and declaratory relief

Type(s), Product(s), Active substance(s) :

Organophosphate, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon

Requests :

Declare that FWS and Secretary Deb Haaland are in violation of the APA by failing to complete the consultations, as required by the ESA, for chlorpyrifos and/or diazinon within a reasonable time; Issue an order compelling FWS and Deb Haaland to complete the required consultations within six months; Enjoin Defendants from use of chlorpyrifos and diazinon on lands within their jurisdiction until they have completed the chlorpyrifos and diazinon consultations...

Name of the Court :

United States District Court of Arizona , United States

Jurisdiction level :

Summary :

CBD sues the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to push it to take action to stop endangered species from being harmed by the pesticides chlorpyrifos and diazinon, as required by the Endangered Species Act. In January 2017 the EPA released analyses finding that 97% of the more than 1,800 animals and plants protected under the Endangered Species Act are likely to be harmed by chlorpyrifos and that 78% are likely to be hurt by diazinon. The EPA initiated formal Endangered Species Act consultation with the Service in early 2017 to establish measures to limit the harms of the two pesticides. But five years later the Service has not complied with its duties to produce a biological opinion for either pesticide. Therefore, the lawsuit comes after the Service failed to meet December 2017 deadlines to finalize consultations with the Environmental Protection Agency on the risks posed by the two organophosphates.

Scientific references :

No scientifice reference for this case.