The Supreme Court of California has granted review of two cases to resolve a split among courts of appeal over whether the issuance of well permits pursuant to state standards is subject to CEQA. California Water Impact Network v. County of San Luis Obispo and Protecting Our Water & Environmental Resources v. Stanislaus County. At … Continue Reading
The Fourth Appellate District has held that a memorandum of understanding between a water district, county, property owner, and water company outlining mutual responsibilities for preparing a groundwater management plan governing the installation and operation of groundwater extraction wells was not a “project” requiring review under CEQA. The court based its decision on its conclusion … Continue Reading
The Sixth District Court of Appeal has ruled that a judgment quieting title to overlying rights to groundwater in times of basin surplus does not require quantification of the specific amount of prescriptive rights that may previously have been established against each overlying landowner. City of Santa Maria v. Adam, et al., No. H041133 (Sixth … Continue Reading
A water district is not subject to the same vesting rights as a local agency under the Subdivision Map Act. Thus, the Subdivision Map Act does not restrict a municipal utility district’s authority to require an easement as a condition of providing water service to a residential lot on a newly-subdivided parcel. Tarbet v. East … Continue Reading
It is now clear that the present drought requires that there be curtailment of the exercise of some existing water rights due to the lack of sufficient surface water. On January 17, 2014—the same day as the Governor’s Proclamation of a drought state of emergency—the State Water Resources Control Board issued a “Notice of Surface Water … Continue Reading
A court of appeal, for the first time, has upheld the State Water Resources Control Board’s authority to restrict valid pre-1914 and riparian water rights on the ground that their exercise has become an unreasonable use of water under current circumstances. While it has long been accepted that California law requires that water be put to … Continue Reading
In February 2012, the Westlands Water District and related water distribution districts entered into two-year interim renewal contracts with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation relating to the Bureau’s ongoing provision of Central Valley Project water to the Districts. The purpose of the interim contracts was to continue the existing terms for water delivery in advance … Continue Reading
Every few years, with El Nino-like regularity, a wave of interest in CEQA reform sweeps through the business community, accompanied by pleas to the legislature to overhaul the statute. In the end, few substantive changes are made. This year is no exception. (See June 14th post). Many of the recurring concerns involve the unpredictability of … Continue Reading
In July 2012, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Salazar, 686 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2012), that the decision by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to renew a series of water service contracts in connection with the Central Valley Project did not constitute “agency action” under the Endangered … Continue Reading
The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion that the flow of polluted water from a concrete channel to an unlined section of the same river constituted a “discharge of pollutants.” Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Environmental organizations sued the Los Angeles County … Continue Reading
A water replenishment district’s declaration of a water emergency was not subject to CEQA because the declaration itself had no environmental impact, it was authorized under the terms of a judgment imposing a physical solution on the groundwater basin, and the district had no discretion to alter the terms of the judgment which specify the consequences … Continue Reading
In Habitat and Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz, the court of appeal set aside the EIR for long-term development of the U.C. Santa Cruz campus. The city and the University of California had settled litigation challenging the University’s development plan. A key provision of the agreement required the city to seek Local Agency … Continue Reading
After wading through a detailed discussion relating to biological impacts (see Perkins Coie Update), the court in Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee dove into issues surrounding an EIR’s analysis of water supplies. The court found the EIR invalid in part because it failed to consider the uncertainty of State Water Project water supplies. … Continue Reading
In a case packed with hot-button issues — CEQA exemptions, water supply impacts, climate change, LAFCO regulation of land uses, and preemption of state law on tribal lands — a court of appeal has ruled that the El Dorado Irrigation District erred in approving an agreement to supply water to a tribal casino. Background. In … Continue Reading
