Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, Steve Shehyn, owns a 20-acre avocado orchard in Moorpark, California. He alleged that sediment from the Ventura County Public Works Agency and Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1's (collectively, the District) water delivery system permanently damaged his irrigation pipes and orchard. The plaintiff claimed that the sediment was a direct result of the District's water supply facilities' plan, design, maintenance, and operation.The trial court sustained the District's demurrer to the plaintiff's first amended complaint, which included causes of action for breach of contract, negligence, and inverse condemnation. The court allowed the plaintiff to amend the breach of contract and negligence claims but sustained the demurrer without leave to amend for the inverse condemnation claim, citing that the plaintiff "invited" the District's water onto his property. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, maintaining the inverse condemnation claim unchanged and indicating his intent to seek a writ of mandamus. The trial court entered judgment for the District after the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his contract and negligence claims without prejudice.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case de novo. The court concluded that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded his claim for inverse condemnation. The court found that the plaintiff's allegations that the District's water delivery system delivered a disproportionate amount of sediment to his property, causing damage, supported a claim for inverse condemnation. The court disagreed with the trial court's reliance on Williams v. Moulton Niguel Water Dist., stating that the issue of whether the plaintiff "invited" the water goes to the merits of the claim, not its viability at the pleading stage. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case with instructions to enter a new order overruling the demurrer. View "Shehyn v. Ventura County Public Works Agency" on Justia Law

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted a regulation in August 2020 to limit emissions from ocean-going vessels while docked at California ports. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) challenged this regulation, arguing that CARB acted arbitrarily and capriciously by setting unfeasible compliance deadlines for emissions control measures. WSPA also claimed that CARB violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by not timely disclosing a commissioned report on tanker emissions and failed to adequately analyze safety hazards and cumulative environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied WSPA’s petition for a writ of mandate, finding that CARB had the authority to set emissions standards requiring future technology and that WSPA did not prove the necessary technology would not be developed in time. The court also found that CARB substantially complied with the APA’s notice provisions and did not violate CEQA in its environmental analysis.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that CARB’s determination that compliance with the regulation was feasible did not lack evidentiary support. CARB relied on assurances from technology providers that capture and control systems could be adapted for tankers by the compliance deadlines. The court also found that CARB substantially complied with the APA by making the emissions report available before the end of the comment period, allowing WSPA to provide feedback. Finally, the court held that CARB’s environmental analysis under CEQA was adequate, as it provided a general discussion of potential impacts and appropriately deferred more specific analysis to future site-specific reviews. View "Western States Petroleum Ass'n. v. Cal. Air Resources Bd." on Justia Law

Reabold California LLC applied to the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM) to convert a former oil well into a Class II injection well. The well, located in the Brentwood Oil Field, would be used to inject produced water back into an aquifer exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act. CalGEM approved the project, invoking a Class 1 categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for minor alterations of existing facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use.The Contra Costa County Superior Court ruled in favor of Sunflower Alliance, which challenged CalGEM’s use of the categorical exemption. The court agreed with Sunflower that converting an oil well into an injection well constituted a significant change in use, thus not fitting within the Class 1 exemption. Consequently, the court issued a writ of mandate directing CalGEM to set aside its notice of exemption and project approval.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the well conversion project fell within the Class 1 exemption because the environmental risks associated with injecting water were negligible. The court emphasized that the project involved only minor physical alterations to the well and that the injected water would be geologically confined within the aquifer, posing negligible environmental risks. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment, directing it to deny Sunflower’s petition for writ of mandate and to order CalGEM to reinstate its project approval and notice of exemption. View "Sunflower Alliance v. Dept. of Conservation" on Justia Law

In April 2020, the City of Upland approved the development of a 201,096 square-foot warehouse/parcel delivery service building. The City adopted a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Upland Community First (UCF) filed a petition for a writ of mandate, claiming the project violated CEQA due to potential significant impacts on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, traffic, and air quality, arguing that an environmental impact report (EIR) should have been prepared.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County granted UCF’s petition on the grounds that insufficient evidence supported the City’s use of two quantitative thresholds for measuring the project’s cumulative impacts on GHG emissions. The court found that the City’s use of the 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2 e/yr.) and 3,000 MTCO2 e/yr. thresholds lacked adequate support. The court ordered the City to set aside its resolutions approving the MND and other project approvals to address the sufficiency of evidence supporting the GHG emissions thresholds.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court found that substantial evidence supported the City’s use of the 3,000 MTCO2 e/yr. threshold for measuring the significance of the project’s GHG emissions. The court concluded that the project’s GHG emissions would be below the 3,000 threshold, thus not significantly impacting GHG emissions. The court reversed the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded the matter with directions to enter judgment in favor of the City and Bridge Development Partners, LLC, on UCF’s petition and complaint. View "Upland Community First v. City of Upland" on Justia Law

The case involves the California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (Coalition) challenging the State Air Resources Board (Board) over the adoption of the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation (Regulation). The Coalition, which supports natural gas as an alternative fuel, argues that the Regulation's focus on electric vehicles (ZEV) harms those using low-NOx vehicles designed to reduce nitrogen oxides. The Coalition claims the Board did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in promulgating the Regulation.The Superior Court of Fresno County rejected the Coalition's claims and denied their petition. The court found that the Board's rejection of the low-NOx vehicle credit as an alternative was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board had no obligation to consider it further as a mitigation measure. The court also concluded that the Board's failure to respond to certain public comments was harmless. Additionally, the court allowed the Coalition to augment the administrative record with a document referenced in comments during the regulatory process.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the Board's rejection of the low-NOx vehicle credit as an alternative was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The court also agreed that the Board's failure to respond to comments was harmless, as the Board had already considered and rejected the low-NOx vehicle credit. The court found that the Board's economic impact analysis under the APA was proper and that the Board had considered the impact on industries affected by the Regulation. Finally, the court concluded that any error in augmenting the administrative record was harmless. View "Cal. Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition v. State Air Resources Bd." on Justia Law

A lawyer representing Friends of the South Fork Gualala (FSFG) filed a disability accommodation request under rule 1.100 of the California Rules of Court, seeking extensions of time and relief from procedural obligations due to his bipolar disorder. FSFG had previously challenged the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's (CalFIRE) approval of a timber harvest plan, arguing that the plan's approval was deficient in several respects, including inadequate consideration of geologic, biologic, and cultural resources. Although the trial court granted FSFG's petition in part, it denied the claim that CalFIRE's tardy publication of a complete written response to public comments rendered the approval defective.The Sonoma County Superior Court had granted six prior requests for scheduling relief based on the lawyer's mental health disability but denied the seventh request. The court found that the repeated requests for postponements created an undue financial and administrative burden and fundamentally altered the nature of the expedited California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) proceeding. FSFG appealed the denial of the seventh request, arguing that the trial court had no choice but to grant the accommodation due to the lawyer's qualifying disability.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the seventh request for accommodation. The court noted that FSFG had ample opportunity to retain additional counsel and that the repeated requests for extensions unduly burdened the court and altered the nature of the expedited CEQA proceeding. The appellate court concluded that the trial court's decision was reasonable and supported by the record. View "Friends of the So. Fork Gualala v. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection" on Justia Law

A company applied to convert an old oil well into an injection well to dispose of produced water back into the aquifer. The well, located in Contra Costa County, had been drilled in 1963 and operated for over 20 years before being plugged. The project involved minor alterations to the well, such as removing the plug and installing injection equipment. Regulatory agencies, including CalGEM and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, reviewed the application and approved it, determining that the injected water would be confined within the aquifer by thick layers of shale.The Contra Costa County Superior Court ruled in favor of Sunflower Alliance, concluding that the project did not qualify for a Class 1 categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because converting the well to an injection well constituted a significant change in use. The court issued a writ of mandate directing CalGEM to set aside its notice of exemption and project approval.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case and reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the well conversion project fell within the Class 1 categorical exemption as it involved only minor alterations and the change in use posed negligible environmental risks. The court found substantial evidence supporting CalGEM's determination that the project would not have significant environmental effects. The court also rejected Sunflower's argument that CalGEM improperly imposed mitigation measures, concluding that the conditions imposed were part of the regulatory requirements for Class II wells. The appellate court directed the lower court to deny Sunflower's petition for writ of mandate and to order CalGEM to reinstate its project approval and notice of exemption. View "Sunflower Alliance v. Cal. Dept. of Conservation" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a project proposing major changes to the California State Capitol. The Department of General Services (DGS) and the Joint Committee on Rules of the California State Senate and Assembly prepared both an EIR and a revised EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project includes demolishing the existing Capitol Annex, constructing a new attached Annex, building an underground visitor center, and constructing a new underground parking garage. Save Our Capitol! challenged the revised EIR, arguing it failed to comply with CEQA.The Superior Court of Sacramento County rejected Save Our Capitol!'s claims, leading to this appeal. Previously, the court had issued a peremptory writ of mandate after finding certain aspects of the original EIR flawed. DGS revised the EIR, reapproved the project without the visitor center, and the trial court discharged the writ. Save Our Capitol! then filed a new petition for writ of mandate, which the trial court also rejected.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, citing recent legislation, Senate Bill No. 174, which exempts the Capitol Annex Project from CEQA’s requirements. The court found that the new law, effective immediately, dictates that all work performed under the Annex Act is exempt from CEQA. Save Our Capitol!'s arguments that DGS violated CEQA were rejected based on this exemption. The court also addressed and dismissed Save Our Capitol!'s constitutional challenge to Senate Bill 174, finding that the bill does not violate article IV, section 28 of the California Constitution. The judgment was affirmed, and DGS was entitled to recover its costs on appeal. View "Save Our Capitol! v. Dept. of General Services" on Justia Law

The case involves the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment and Advocates for the Environment (collectively, SCOPE) challenging the County of Los Angeles and Williams Homes, Inc. (Williams) over the approval of a residential housing development project in the Santa Clarita Valley. SCOPE's lawsuit contested the County's approval of a conditional use permit, an oak tree permit, and a vesting tentative tract map, alleging violations of the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Williams's motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend, finding that SCOPE's claims were barred under Government Code section 66499.37 of the SMA because SCOPE failed to serve a summons within 90 days of the County's approval of the vesting tentative tract map. The court concluded that section 66499.37 applied to both the SMA and CEQA causes of action, as the CEQA claims were intertwined with the SMA claims.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court held that section 66499.37 does not bar SCOPE's CEQA claims to the extent they allege procedural violations of CEQA and the County's failure to analyze and disclose the project's environmental impacts, as these claims are unique to CEQA and could not have been brought under the SMA. However, the court found that section 66499.37 does apply to SCOPE's CEQA claims challenging the reasonableness of the conditions of approval of the vesting tentative tract map, specifically the mitigation measures adopted as a condition of approval.The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded the case, directing the trial court to enter a new order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the first cause of action for violation of CEQA and granting the motion with respect to the second cause of action for violation of the SMA and zoning and planning law. View "Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

The case involves a proposed residential housing development project near the University of Southern California (USC) by the City of Los Angeles. The project, which includes 102 units and various amenities, was found by the City to be exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 32 urban in-fill development. The appellants, West Adams Heritage Association and Adams Severance Coalition, challenged this determination, arguing that the City abused its discretion by not finding the project consistent with the applicable redevelopment plan, improperly relying on mitigation measures for noise impacts, and failing to show the project would not have significant adverse impacts on traffic safety.The Los Angeles County Superior Court denied the appellants' writ petition, rejecting their challenges to the project. The court found that the City did not abuse its discretion in concluding the project would not have significant impacts on traffic or historical resources. The appellants then appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court initially reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the City improperly relied on mitigation measures for noise impacts. However, the Supreme Court transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal with instructions to reconsider in light of Assembly Bill No. 1307 and the Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California decision.Upon reconsideration, the Court of Appeal held that under the new law, noise generated by project occupants and their guests is not considered a significant environmental effect under CEQA. Therefore, the noise concerns do not preclude the application of the Class 32 exemption. The court also determined that the City must assess whether the project is consistent with the applicable redevelopment plan before granting the exemption. The court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for the City to conduct this analysis. The court also concluded that the state density bonus law preempts the redevelopment plan's density provisions, allowing the City to calculate the project's allowable density based on the general zoning ordinance. View "West Adams Heritage Assn. v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law