Under the authority of a federal court settlement, the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed sweeping new pesticide rules covering 100 million acres in 29 states.

The USDA says the impacts on agriculture will be “staggering,” predicting that if left unchanged the rules will make farming in some areas all but impossible.

It’s a story with huge implications for all Americans, but one that has gone virtually unreported outside the Capital Press and our colleagues in the ag press.

Mainstream, national news organizations need to turn their attention to the story before the American public is caught unaware.

The Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network filed a lawsuit in 2011, alleging the EPA violated the Endangered Species Act by approving 382 pesticide active ingredients. The suit was narrowed to 35 active ingredients, but was still referred to by the EPA as the pesticide “megasuit.”

Under the settlement, EPA agreed to drop its chemical-by-chemical, species-by-species approach to evaluating how pesticides affect protected species. Instead, the agency will develop separate “strategies” for herbicides, rodenticides, insecticides and fungicides.

Rather than evaluating pesticide products separately, the EPA will impose restrictions on groups of farm chemicals.

The settlement commits the agency to 27 “pilot projects” that restrict pesticide use to protect threatened or endangered species in parts of 29 states, including Oregon, Washington and California. Those projects, in turn, could be expanded to include other species over greater areas.

As proposed, the area impacted is equal to the land mass of California.

While the settlement ensures that pesticides won’t be pulled from the market, the new rules place unprecedented restrictions on their use.

In some places, farmers won’t be able to spray without getting permission three months in advance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In others, farmers will have to check an EPA website for application instructions too lengthy to print on product labels. In some places, they won’t be able to spray at all.

Ag groups say the program could end agricultural production in some areas.

University of Illinois weed scientist Aaron Hager said he has explained the plan to farmers and pesticide applicators.

“I don’t think there’s a high level of awareness about this in the sectors of agriculture that should be aware of it,” Hager said. “I think there’s some level of disbelief.”

While the Capital Press and many ag media outlets have covered the story since the original suit was filed, national news organizations have mostly ignored the issue.

The New York Times published a story on the settlement, but presented the settlement as a win-win for species and farmers, giving readers no hint that ag groups, state ag departments and even the USDA have serious reservations about the impacts of the program.

The Mississippi Farm Bureau says the pilot project could be EPA’s most “transformative and disruptive” policy since its inception, while the California Fresh Fruit Association says it could stop production “in the agricultural bread basket of California.”

Who knew? Without more coverage, America is in for a rude surprise.