844 F. Supp. 2d 1006
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Center for Food Safety and others sue USDA/APHIS over Roundup Ready Alfalfa deregulation under NEPA, PPA, ESA, and APA.
- APHIS deregulated Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA) despite prior Finding of No Significant Impact, after preparing a FEIS with a co-preferred alternative.
- Plaintiffs allege deregulation increases glyphosate use, fosters glyphosate resistant weeds, and risks transgenic contamination harming organic/conventional growers.
- Court previously vacated deregulation in Alfalfa I; Supreme Court reversed, remanding but left vacatur in place; APHIS subsequently fully deregulated RRA in January 2011.
- Plaintiffs assert multiple NEPA process flaws, PPA misreadings, and ESA consultation failures; Defendants move for summary judgment; court grants Defendants’ motions on all claims except none.
- The Court analyzes PPA, ESA, and NEPA challenges to APHIS’s RRA deregulation, evaluating statutory authority, record evidence, and agency discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA compliance in deregulating RRA | RRA poses noxious weed and plant pest risks; APHIS ignored noxious weed mandate | PPA noxious weed analysis not required under current regulations; APHIS acted within authority | RRA deregulation did not violate PPA; agency action upheld |
| ESA consultation and causation | APHIS failed to consult with FWS and its glyphosate-use effects harm listed species | APHIS not legally the cause of glyphosate effects; EPA regulates herbicides; no consultation required | ESA claim granted no relief; APHIS not legally responsible for glyphosate effects; ECJA summary judgment for D & ID |
| NEPA hard look and alternatives analysis | APHIS failed to take a hard look; improperly constrained alternatives by misreading authority | Agency reasonably construed authority; DEIS/FEIS provided hard look; partial deregulation not required | NEPA claims fail; summary judgment for Defendants; no vacatur of deregulation |
| Partial deregulation authority under PPA | APHIS could partially deregulate despite plant-pest finding | Partial deregulation requires plant pest risk or presumption of risk; not present here | APHIS’s conclusion against partial deregulation upheld; final deregulation consistent with authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (agency deference to reasonable interpretation of statutes and regulations)
- Public Citizen v. FMCSA, 541 U.S. 752 (U.S. 2004) (legally relevant causation; agency not responsible for effects beyond discretion)
- Home Builders Ass’n of Metropolitan Cities v. EPA, 551 U.S. 649 (U.S. 2007) (agency duties under ESA limited to discretionary actions)
- Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1971) (narrow scope of review; court does not substitute its judgment)
- Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 376 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (agency must take hard look at environmental consequences)
- Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 442 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2006) (hard look NEPA scrutiny of environmental impacts)
- Kern v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 284 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002) (NEPA's hard look standard; significant environmental consequences)