The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposals to fundamentally change U.S. pesticide regulations are likely to be challenged in court, according to observers.

The EPA’s herbicide strategy and vulnerable species pilot project propose broad-based limits on pesticide use without new scientific studies to support the additional restrictions.

The proposals follow neither the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act nor the Endangered Species Act, critics claim.

It’s unclear what law the EPA is basing the herbicide strategy and pilot project on, National Agricultural Law Center attorney Brigit Rollins said.

“By what authority is EPA doing this? I think that’s the million-dollar question,” she said. “If it’s challenged in court, and I think it will be, I would not be surprised if that issue was central to the challenge.”

The EPA rolled out the vulnerable species pilot project in June, presented the herbicide strategy in July and committed to both in a court settlement with environmental groups in September.

The pilot project will apply to more than 100 million acres in parts of 29 states. Farmers would have to get permission from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service three months before spraying.

The herbicide strategy would introduce a point system. Most farmers in most places could not score enough points to spray, according to the Association of American Pesticide Control Officers.

The EPA defends the initiatives as a response to courts impatient with the agency’s failure to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service before approving a pesticide.

According to the USDA, both proposals deviate from the way the EPA has evaluated and regulated pesticides in the past.

“They’re not similar to the normal risk assessment and pesticide re-evaluation processes,” Washington State Department of Agriculture scientist Gary Bahr said.

Bahr chairs the State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group, a national committee of state scientists funded by the EPA. The EPA wrote the herbicide strategy and pilot project without consulting them.

The State FIFRA committee asked the EPA to cite its authority for changing pesticide labels without new science.

“We have not gotten a response yet,” Bahr said. “We’ll continue to ask these questions, and we’re hopeful that we can learn more on what their perspective is.”

The EPA did not provide answers to questions for this story.

In documents explaining its new approach to regulating pesticides, the EPA states it can’t keep up with its ESA workload.

As the solution, EPA proposes “early mitigations” even before consulting with Fish and Wildlife or the National Marine Fisheries Service.

“EPA can no longer ignore its ESA obligations, especially if we want to ensure the availability of pesticides for growers and other pesticide users,” the agency states.

The EPA also plans to roll out insecticide, fungicide and rodenticide strategies.

North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring said the EPA was acting outside its authority and was “fecklessly and cavalierly” inviting lawsuits.

“To avoid being sued, EPA should simply withdraw its strategy and start over,” Goehring wrote in comments sent to the EPA.

Rollins, of the agricultural law center, said it’s probably too early for someone to claim harm and file a lawsuit.

“Right now, I don’t think anyone has sufficient standing to get into court,” she said. “It’s really unclear what the actual on-the-ground impacts will be.”