In a published decision filed September 6, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) reversed the trial court’s judgment granting a writ of mandate and upheld the use of CEQA’s Class 1 categorical exemption (CEQA...more
In a March 27, 2023 post found here, we wrote about the Second District Court of Appeal’s (Div. 1) decision concerning the Water Code section 13389 CEQA exemption for Regional Water Quality Control Board (“RWQCB”) issuance of...more
Against the backdrop of another severe drought, water supply and impact issues continue to be points of contention for water agencies, water users, conservation groups, and the state. And, of course, litigation over water is...more
In a published opinion filed December 29, 2020, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate filed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) challenging waste...more
On August 27, 2020, the California Supreme Court filed its unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Corrigan, in Protecting Our Water and Environmental Resources v. County of Stanislaus (2020) ___ Cal.5th ___ (“POWER”). The...more
In a July 3, 2014 published decision more notable for the practical importance of the water rights involved than the CEQA law applied, the Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected the CEQA challenges of various environmental...more
In a lengthy published opinion filed May 21, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal reversed a judgment granting a writ of mandate and upheld as legally adequate under CEQA the Marin Municipal Water District’s EIR for...more
The Second District Court of Appeal upheld the County of Santa Barbara’s Final Revised Environmental Impact Report for a 30-year conditional use permit (CUP) for the Diamond Rock mine project. Save Cuyama Valley v. County of...more