Environmentalists Triumph in Legal Battle Against Federal Grasshopper Control Plan

A federal judge ruled in favor of two environmental groups challenging the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s pesticide use to control grasshopper infestations in the western U.S.

U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernandez granted summary judgment to the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and the Center for Biological Diversity. Judge Hernandez agreed that the federal service had failed to properly consider alternative methods to the widespread use of pesticides.

The organizations claimed that the service, part of the Department of Agriculture, violated the National Environmental Policy Act. They argued that the 2019 environmental impact statement didn’t explore holistic alternatives for grasshopper control, failed to establish baseline conditions, and neglected to assess the program’s impact on sensitive species, such as pollinators and sage grouse.

While the service must control grasshopper and Mormon cricket populations to preserve forage on rangelands, Hernandez found their analysis lacking. He criticized the service’s narrow focus on pesticide use.

“By concentrating solely on pesticide suppression, the environmental impact statement is narrower than required by statutes,” Hernandez said, referencing the Plant Protection Act and the Food Quality and Protection Act.

Judge Hernandez emphasized that no evidence showed pesticide treatments met the overall purpose of the statutes and indicated that other pest management techniques hadn’t been adequately considered.

Integrated pest management, a sustainable pest control approach, combines biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools to minimize risks to health and the environment.

“The Department of Agriculture has long used harmful insecticides across western ecosystems,” said Lori Ann Burd of the Center for Biological Diversity. “This ruling is a victory for bees, butterflies, sage grouse, and numerous critters.”

According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the service’s “outdated” program leverages large-scale aerial pesticide spraying. This includes spraying in national wildlife refuges, public recreation areas, endangered species habitats, and near wilderness areas.

In 2021, the service proposed contracts for aerial spraying over 2.6 million acres in Montana, with one block nearly reaching a million acres. The lawsuit highlighted the negative impacts of the insecticide program in Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, and Idaho.

Other states approved for insecticide use include Arizona, California, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service did not respond to requests for comment after business hours.