November, 18 2008, 03:10pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Joshua Osborne-Klein, Earthjustice, (206) 343-7340, ext. 28
Glen Spain, PCFFA, (541) 689-2000
Aimee Code, NW Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, (541) 344-5044, ext. 27
Federal Government Announces Plan to Protect Salmon from Pesticides
Today, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released a biological opinion
that sets forth a plan for protecting Pacific salmon and steelhead from
three toxic organophosphate pesticides. The decision comes after almost
a decade of legal wrangling between salmon advocates and the federal
government.
SEATTLE
Today, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released a biological opinion
that sets forth a plan for protecting Pacific salmon and steelhead from
three toxic organophosphate pesticides. The decision comes after almost
a decade of legal wrangling between salmon advocates and the federal
government.
In the biological opinion, federal wildlife scientists
comprehensively reviewed the science regarding the impacts of
pesticides on salmon and ultimately concluded that current uses of the
insecticides chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion jeopardize the
existence of these imperiled fish. The biological opinion prescribes
measures necessary to keep these pesticides out of water and to protect
salmon populations in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho.
The new mitigation measures must be implemented within one year. They include:
- Prohibiting aerial applications of the three pesticides within 1,000 feet of salmon waters
- Prohibiting ground applications of the three pesticides within 500 feet of salmon waters
- Requiring a 20 foot non-crop vegetative buffer around salmon waters and ditches that drain into salmon habitat
- Prohibiting applications of the three pesticides when wind speeds are greater than or equal to 10 mph
"Keeping these pesticides out of the water is a major step toward
protecting our salmon stocks and revitalizing the fishing industry,
which can generate hundreds of million of dollars in the region," said
Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
(PCFFA).
The three pesticides at issue in the biological opinion are known to
contaminate rivers and streams throughout California and the Pacific
Northwest and poison salmon and steelhead (see background below).
"The federal government has a duty to protect imperiled salmon from
these deadly pesticides," said Joshua Osborne-Klein, an attorney for
Earthjustice, the environmental law firm that represented the salmon
advocates. "We are very pleased that the government has finally taken
these steps to protect salmon, the icon of the Pacific Northwest's
natural heritage."
In addition to jeopardizing salmon, these pesticides pose serious
risks to public heath - especially the health of young children. A
number of recent studies have linked prenatal exposure to
organophosphate insecticides with behavioral problems including
attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. A 2006 study published in
Pediatrics, compared the risks of chlorpyrifos to prenatal cocaine
exposure.
"This decision will have a lasting impact that benefits our
grandchildren. Their rivers will provide cleaner drinking water, be
safer for swimming and more habitable for thriving runs of salmon,"
said Aimee Code, the Water Quality Coordinator at the Northwest
Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides.
Legal Background
In 2002, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
(PCFFA), the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, and
other salmon advocates, with legal representation from Earthjustice,
obtained a federal court order declaring that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency had violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to
consult with NMFS on the impacts that certain pesticides have on salmon
and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and California. As a result of
that lawsuit, EPA began consultations, but NMFS never issued biological
opinions or identified the measures needed to protect salmon and
steelhead from the pesticides. In 2007, the salmon advocates filed a
second lawsuit and entered into a settlement agreement with NMFS that
establishes a schedule for issuing the required biological
opinions. The biological opinion released today is the first of several
decisions that will be released over the next three-and-a-half years
and will assess a total of 37 pesticides.
Scientific Background
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determined that
accepted uses of chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of 27 species of endangered or
threatened salmon and steelhead. NMFS's biological opinion of the three
pesticides, released today, stated that current uses were likely
reducing the number of salmon returning to spawn (BiOp at 292). These
three pesticides are all organophosphates (a class of neurotoxic
chemicals). They are used in both agricultural and/or urban insect
control. Recent research has found that in combination they can have
"synergistic effects" on salmon. In other words, the effect of
organophosphate mixtures is greater than the effect of each of the
chemicals' effects when added together. These chemicals are often found
together.
Chlorpyrifos
- Contaminates rivers throughout the west at levels harmful to fish
or their food sources according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The
basins where chlorpyrifos was detected at harmful levels include the
Willamette, San Joaquin, Tulare, and the Central Columbia Basin. - Is "very highly toxic" to fish (according to U.S. EPA's toxicity classification system). (BiOp at 269)
- Impairs fish reproduction by reducing egg production in fish. (BiOp at 270)
- Inhibits juvenile coho salmon feeding behavior and swimming speed. (BiOp at 281-822)
- Harms the survival and reproduction of salmon food sources. (BiOp at 271-72)
Diazinon
- Contaminates rivers throughout the west at levels harmful to fish
or their food sources according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The
basins where diazinon was detected at harmful levels include the
Willamette, San Joaquin, Tulare, the Central Columbia Basin and Puget
Sound. It was also detected in King County, Washington streams. - Impairs feeding, predator avoidance, spawning, homing and
migration capabilities by impeding salmon sense of smell. (BiOp at 275) - Leads to weakened swimming activity in juvenile trout. (BiOp at 282-83)
- Is acutely toxic to salmon food sources. (BiOp at 275-76)
Malathion
- Contaminates rivers throughout the west at levels harmful to fish
or their food sources according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The
basins where malathion was detected at harmful levels include the
Willamette, San Joaquin, Tulare, and the Central Columbia Basin. It was
also detected in King County, Washington streams. - Leads to weakened swimming activity in juvenile trout. (BiOp at 282-83)
Read the biological opinion (PDF)
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
'Disgusting': Republicans Applaud as Trump Brags About Taking Food Aid From Millions
"His Big Ugly Bill ripped food away from hungry moms, kids, and seniors to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans," said one House Democrat.
Feb 25, 2026
US President Donald Trump received a standing ovation from Republican lawmakers and administration officials Tuesday night when he bragged during his State of the Union address about taking nutrition assistance from millions, which he euphemistically characterized as lifting people off food stamps.
"In one year, we have lifted 2.4 million Americans—a record—off of food stamps," Trump said during his nearly two-hour speech.
The Republican reconciliation package that Trump signed into law last summer included $187 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over a 10-year period, the largest cuts to the program in US history.
Trump: "In one year, we have lifted 2.4 million Americans -- a record -- off of food stamps" (In other words, Republicans cut food stamps) pic.twitter.com/19EoNEUmPF
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 25, 2026
The Republican law includes reductions in federal nutrition funding for states—which administer SNAP—as well as expanded work requirements, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated would strip nutrition benefits from "roughly 2.4 million people in an average month" over the next decade.
As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted in a recent analysis, changes enacted by the Trump-GOP law mean that "for the first time in the 50-year history of the modern SNAP program, the federal government will no longer ensure that the lowest-income people, including children, older adults, veterans, and people with disabilities, in every state have access to the food assistance they need because states that refuse to pay the cost share could see the program end."
Shortly after Trump signed the Republican megabill into law, his administration canceled an annual US Department of Agriculture survey aimed at measuring food insecurity, undercutting efforts to track the impact of the unprecedented SNAP cuts. The USDA's final reports estimated that nearly 48 million people in the US faced food insecurity in 2024—including nearly one in five households with children.
"Trump says he 'lifted' millions off food stamps," Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.) wrote in response to the president's State of the Union remarks. "But what he really means is his Big Ugly Bill ripped food away from hungry moms, kids, and seniors to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The lies are blatant and disgusting."
Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) denounced her Republican colleagues for their celebratory response to Trump's boast.
"They're applauding ripping food out of people’s mouths to fund their tax cuts for billionaires," McBride wrote on social media.
USDA data released ahead of Trump's speech shows that around 696,000 fewer people received SNAP benefits in November 2025 compared to the previous month.
Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst on the food assistance team at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, noted that "people haven’t been dropping off SNAP because they no longer need help."
"Economic conditions haven’t improved and groceries haven’t gotten more affordable," Bergh added. "They're losing basic food assistance because of policy choices. Allowing this trend to continue is also a policy choice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congress Urged to Require Warrants in Reauthorization of Key Spy Power
"FISA 702 has been abused in shocking ways," said one campaigner. "If Congress genuinely cares about surveillance abuse, weaponization, and 'lawfare,' it needs to rein in this warrantless surveillance power."
Feb 24, 2026
Privacy advocates are backing a bipartisan bill introduced in the US Senate this week that's intended to protect Americans from warrantless government surveillance.
Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) unveiled the Security and Freedom Enhancement (SAFE) Act on Monday, in the wake of Politico reporting that President Donald Trump's White House "is quietly pushing for a key spy authority to be extended as is into 2027, according to five people granted anonymity to discuss the private talks."
There have long been arguments on Capitol Hill and beyond over Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which empowers the federal government to surveil electronic communications without a warrant. The law only allows for targeting foreigners outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information, but Americans' data is also collected.
Despite such arguments, Congress reauthorized Section 702 nearly two years ago, under then-President Joe Biden. That decision is set to expire on April 20, setting up a new battle over the spying power—hence the bill's introduction this week.
Under Durbin and Lee's proposal, the authority would be extended another two years, but government agencies must obtain a FISA Title I order or a warrant before accessing Americans' communications. As the pair noted in a statement, it also "closes the 'data broker loophole' that intelligence and law enforcement agencies use to buy their way around the Fourth Amendment" to the US Constitution, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures and details requirements for issuing warrants.
"Section 702 is a valuable tool to help keep our nation safe," said Durbin. "However, it's being used to conduct thousands of warrantless searches of Americans' private communications. That's unacceptable. Our bipartisan SAFE Act is a commonsense solution to continue protecting our country from foreign threats—while safeguarding Americans' civil liberties and privacy."
In a Tuesday statement welcoming the legislation, Demand Progress senior policy adviser Hajar Hammado highlighted that "right now, the government can freely troll through your private emails and texts swept up in 702 collections and this power has been abused to spy on everyday Americans, journalists, and even members of Congress."
"No government, whether it's run by Donald Trump and Stephen Miller or Joe Biden, should be able to do this," argued Hammado. According to Politico, Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser, "is a leading advocate" for extending Section 702.
Hammado stressed that "the SAFE Act is a bipartisan solution to this problem, and all members of Congress should not support reauthorization without these critical reforms. We thank Sens. Lee and Durbin for their leadership on this bill and for modeling how Republicans and Democrats can come together to stop oppressive government overreach."
Jake Laperruque, deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology's Security & Surveillance project, also endorsed the bill in a Tuesday statement.
"FISA 702 has been abused in shocking ways," said Laperruque. "The FBI has misused it to snoop on protesters, lawmakers, journalists, judges, and campaign donors. If Congress genuinely cares about surveillance abuse, weaponization, and 'lawfare,' it needs to rein in this warrantless surveillance power."
"The SAFE Act includes bold FISA reforms, creates strong guardrails against surveillance misconduct, and has been meticulously crafted to protect national security," he continued. "With less than 10 weeks until FISA 702 expires, Congress should take up reform legislation quickly. Kicking the can on FISA would be a dereliction of duty."
A CDT-led coalition of privacy advocates across the political spectrum recently identified these as the four key issues to address in FISA reform. The SAFE Act effectively takes on all of them. With just SEVEN weeks until FISA 702 expires, we hope Congress will quickly take up this vital bill.
[image or embed]
— Jake Laperruque (@jakelaperruque.bsky.social) February 24, 2026 at 12:22 PM
Republicans have a narrow majority in both chambers of Congress but, due to Senate rules, generally need some Democratic support to send legislation to Trump's desk. However, the GOP could also run into trouble on this issue in the House of Representatives. As Politico pointed out last week:
Ultimately, there's no easy path to pass a clean extension in the House. One of the people with knowledge of the discussions said GOP leaders are "going to have a problem" trying to unite Republicans behind a special "rule" allowing for an up-or-down floor vote on a clean extension, which are typically party-line affairs.
But Republicans also believe that with Trump in office, a number of Democrats who previously supported leaving Section 702 intact will now support putting more fetters on intelligence agencies—making the alternative route, a two-thirds-majority bipartisan vote under suspension of the rules, all but impossible.
The latest Section 702 fight comes as Trump is under fire for his rising authoritarianism, from invasions of US cities targeting immigrants to his sweeping assault on First Amendment rights, including reported federal watch lists to track and categorize US citizens—especially activists and protesters—as "domestic terrorists."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Sued Over 'Unlawful Warrantless Arrests' During North Carolina ICE Blitz
“I am a US citizen, but my papers did not protect me,” said one plaintiff. “I want to be involved in this case because I don’t want this to happen to anyone else."
Feb 24, 2026
A coalition of advocacy groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday "seeking to prevent a pattern of unlawful warrantless arrests in North Carolina that is harming communities" during the Trump administration's deadly crackdown on undocumented immigrants and their defenders.
Democracy Forward, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of North Carolina, and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ) sued the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on behalf of five individuals, including four American citizens and one legal US resident from El Salvador.
“I am a US citizen, but my papers did not protect me,” 46-year-old plaintiff Willy Aceituno said in a statement. “I want to be involved in this case because I don’t want this to happen to anyone else. I want to help protect my Latino family, friends, and neighbors.”
Another plaintiff, 23-year-old North Carolina native Yoshi Cuenca Villamar, said: “I have a lot of fear that this will happen to me again. I was essentially kidnapped based only on the color of my skin. That really weighs on me."
“I think it is important to take action through this case so that the government starts doing their jobs correctly instead of stopping people solely because they look a certain way," Cuenca added.
Democracy Forward said in a statement announcing the lawsuit: "In mid-November, the Trump-Vance administration accelerated its immigration crackdown across North Carolina during Operation Charlotte’s Web. Heavily armed, masked DHS agents, including ICE and CBP officers, roamed Charlotte, Durham, Raleigh, and other communities, detaining and arresting people indiscriminately without warrants or legal justification."
"Each plaintiff was arrested by DHS agents without probable cause to believe that they are legally removable from the country and that they pose a flight risk—determinations required under federal law for warrantless arrests," Democracy Forward continued.
The plaintiffs “represent a class of individuals who have been or will be subjected to warrantless immigration arrests by DHS in North Carolina, including arrests made without probable cause based on flight risk or removability," the group added. "They ask the federal court for the Western District of North Carolina to declare DHS’ mass warrantless arrest policy unlawful and to issue a permanent injunction blocking these unlawful practices.”
ACLU-NC staff attorney Corina Scott said in a statement Tuesday: “Federal immigration agents have consistently ignored the law and trampled civil rights in North Carolina. This lawsuit seeks to stop this abuse of power and demand accountability going forward so that our communities do not continue to suffer violent and unlawful arrests.”
We just filed the first class action lawsuit challenging unlawful warrantless immigration arrests in North Carolina amid the federal government's crackdown. Join us in calling for an end to ICE & CBP terror! https://rebrand.ly/iceout
[image or embed]
— ACLU of North Carolina (@aclunc.bsky.social) February 24, 2026 at 2:40 PM
Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman said that “when armed, masked agents are breaking car windows, handcuffing people without probable cause, and dumping them on the side of the road, that is not law enforcement, it is lawlessness."
"Congress was explicit: Warrantless immigration arrests require individualized probable cause to be proven," she noted. "That standard is not optional based on the whims of whoever is in the White House. [DHS] is carrying out mass arrests that disregard the limits that Congress imposed and the Constitution requires. Federal agencies do not have the authority to sweep up people in America—whether they are US citizens, lawful residents, or anyone else—without legal justification."
"This case is about restoring basic guardrails on government power and ensuring that federal officers follow the law they are sworn to uphold," Perryman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


