Federal Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero in San Francisco has approved a settlement between the Environmental Protection Agency and environmental plaintiffs that seems to untether the agency from federal laws governing the regulation of pesticides in the United States.

This is trouble for farmers, property owners, government agencies and anyone else in the country who uses pesticides.

The Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network filed a lawsuit in 2011, alleging the EPA violated the ESA 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, the EPA has agreed to drop its chemical-by-chemical, species-by-species approach to evaluating how pesticides affect federally protected species. Instead, the agency will develop separate “strategies” for herbicides, rodenticides, insecticides and fungicides.

EPA acknowledged it was far behind in evaluating how individual pesticide products affect threatened and endangered species. Now, rather than evaluating pesticide products separately, the EPA will impose restrictions on groups of farm chemicals.

The strategies will allow it to catch up on its ESA obligations, according to EPA.

Additionally, 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.

The settlement has been widely criticized by farm groups, state agriculture departments, and even the USDA.

Farm groups say the settlement could result in restrictions that are not on the pesticide label, on its face a deviation from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The EPA’s approach would require applicators to search out “off-label” restrictions placed on a product by EPA.

The EPA’s proposal discards FIFRA’s requirement that the costs and benefits of spraying pesticides be analyzed in favor of significant restrictions for all outdoor uses, according to USDA pest management policy director Kimberly Nesci.

“This approach deviates from EPA’s history of risk-based decisions under FIFRA and will have severe economic consequences for some farmers and rural communities in which they operate,” Nesci said.

In some cases, the restrictions will pose threats to the regional production of important crops, Nesci said.

All of this is being implemented under an expedited schedule to meet timelines set out by the settlement. EPA has sought public comment, but this seems largely for show.

EPA said its former approach was too slow and exposed the agency to lawsuits. It said the settlement will “save considerable time and taxpayer expenses required to further litigate this case.”

Plaintiffs are also upbeat because, as an official with the Center for Biological Diversity said, the EPA is now locked into actions that won’t be vulnerable to “changing political winds.”

In other words, the people and their elected representatives are no longer part of the process. The plaintiffs’ agenda, through court order, is now the supreme law of the land.