|Smog & Soot: National Standards Review & Revision||This 2003 lawsuit set the stage for limits on smog pollution from power plants and other sources. We negotiated deadlines with the Environmental Protection Agency to propose standards for ozone, a precursor to smog, by June 20, 2007. The EPA's weak protections mean more pollution for our cities and neighborhoods.|
|Genetically Engineered Sugar Beets||
The genetic engineering of our agricultural products has created serious environmental problems and numerous questions about health and safety. The great majority of genetically engineered ("GE") crops are engineered to be resistant to a specific weed killer, glyphosate (known commercially as "Roundup," owned and marketed by Monsanto). These crops, known as "Roundup Ready," allow farmers to apply large quantities of glyphosate to their fields without harming the crop, but this practice accelerates the evolution of herbicide-resistant "superweeds." Farmers then apply greater and greater quantities of Roundup to try to kill these weeds, and when this fails, they use even more toxic herbicides. Also, the GE crops themselves can cross-pollinate or become mixed with other related crops nearby, contaminating their conventional or organic counterparts.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, approved for commercial production genetically modified sugar beets without assessing the environmental, health, and economic impacts of these Roundup Ready beets, to the dismay of organic farmers, conservationists, and food-safety experts.
Earthjustice sued the USDA on behalf of organic seed producers and conservationists to get the deregulation of genetically-modified beets reversed until a full environmental impact statement is performed. In September 2009, the court agreed the USDA had violated the law and must prepare an EIS. Earthjustice is now seeking an injunction to stop further production of the sugar beets in the meantime.
|Challenge to National Clean Air Standards for Airborne Particulates||
On October 17, 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency refused to strengthen the annual primary particulate matter standard, despite the nearly unanimous recommendation from its own Clean Air Science Advisory Committee that the standard be strengthened. In addition, EPA refused to adopt a more protective secondary standard to protect visibility, and revoked another annual standard for clean air. Earthjustice challenged this action, and in February 2009, a federal court ruled that these Bush-era clean air standards were deficient, and sent them back to EPA for corrective action.
|PM-10 Contingency Measures||This deadline suit seeks to compel EPA to act on the contingency measures in the San Joaquin Valley Air District's PM-10 plan. Contingency measures are required under the federal Clean Air Act as a backstop to protect public health should the Valley fail to meet major milestones in cleaning up particulate matter pollution. The EPA has yet to approve a set of contingency measures for the Valley and the plan is long overdue.|
|NFMA Rule Challenge||
A 1976 law requires the Forest Service to protect wildlife on the national forests and allow citizens to participate in management decisions. The Bush administration has moved to reduce protections and all but cut citizens out of the process. Earthustice filed suit to challenge the new rules. In March 2007, a federal judge invalidated the administration's new regulations.
|Sacramento-San Joaquin River Salmon Biological Opinion||This lawsuit challenges NMFS' politically motivated "no jeopardy" biological opinion on the effects on five ESA-listed salmon and steelhead species of the proposed long-term operations, criteria and plan for the jointly operated federal Central Valley Project and State Water Project -- a plan that would pave the way for dramatically increased exports of water from the Bay Delta.|
|Delta Smelt Biological Opinion||
The tiny smelt that lives in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta has been declining for years. Studies clearly indicate that increasing diversions of water would harm the fish, but the administration decided to proceed anyway. Earthjustice and NRDC sued to block an offending biological opinion.
The court ruled in our favor in December 2007.
|Giant Sequoia Monument Logging||
Challenge to the Forest Service management plan for Giant Sequoia National Monument, a plan that allows extensive logging in previously protected old growth habitat within the Giant Sequoia National Monument. Earthjustice sued on behalf of six organizations to protect this national treasure and the species that depend on it.
On August 22, 2006, a federal judge ruled that the plan to allow commercial logging in Giant Sequoia National Monument was illegal.
|Butte Creek FERC Consultation||
In this case, Earthjustice sought to compel the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to initiate formal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the effects of the DeSabla-Centerville hydroelectric project on federally-listed spring-run Chinook salmon, including the illegal take of thousands of pre-spawning adults on Butte Creek in recent years. On December 12, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that FERC is not required by the existing license to consult with NMFS regarding the effects of the project on newly listed species.
|California Spotted Owl||The Fish and Wildlife Service declined to grant federal protection to the California spotted owl arguing that a management plan known as the Sierra Framework would do so -- then it gutted the framework. Earthjustice has filed suit to seek Endangered Species Act protection for the owl.|
|Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog: ESA Protection||A couple of years ago conservationists sued to gain Endangered Species Act protection for the yellow-legged frog in the Sierra Nevada. The government stalled, then said the species was "warranted but precluded" from protection. The suit now seeks to overturn that decision.|
|Sierra Framework Appeal||Environmental groups have challenged the revised Sierra Framework that would triple the volume of logging on the eleven national forests in California's Sierra Nevada, while at the same time eviscerating species protections contained in the original plan, particularly for the California spotted owl and the Pacific fisher.|