What a difference a decade can make.  Less than a year after I began writing this blog in September 2011, I wrote a post suggesting that – in a “judicial retrenchment” from earlier expansionist interpretations of the law – appellate courts were actively reforming CEQA through published precedents.  (See, “Are Courts Actively Limiting CEQA’s Scope In The Absence of Meaningful Legislative Reform?,” posted on August 31, 2012.)  That judicial reform trend appeared to continue through the ensuing years.  (See, e.g., “Supreme Court is Primary CEQA Reform Engine,” posted on March 4, 2014; “Supreme Engagement: CEQA’s Continuing Saga In California’s High Court,” posted January 5, 2016.)  That trend has also continued in recent years, with many courts actively decrying and curbing CEQA litigation abuses (see, e.g., “‘This Woeful Record’: First District Affirms Judgment Rejecting CEQA Challenges to Marin County’s Approval of 43-Home Mountaintop Subdivision Opposed for Nearly Five Decades By Neighbors And Town of Tiburon,” posted May 23, 2022; “When CEQA Litigation Becomes ‘One Battle After Another’: First District Holds Res Judicata Precludes Third CEQA Action Challenging Caltrans’ Richardson Grove State Park Highway Improvement Project Where Petitioners Sought to Relitigate Issues Necessarily Resolved By Unappealed Final Orders Discharging Two Earlier Writs,” posted April 13, 2026; “Third District Affirms Judgment Finding City of Davis’s Playground Equipment Relocation Project Categorically Exempt, Rejects Appellants’ Claim of Unusual Circumstances Exception as Unsupported By Fair Argument That Project Would Result in Increased Noise Impacts,” posted January 5, 2026).

What is different now is that the Legislature has become increasingly willing to tackle abuses and enact meaningful reforms through legislation either reforming CEQA directly or limiting or avoiding its application to various types of projects through streamlining measures or ministerial approval processes.  (See, e.g., “Third Time’s a Charm: Governor Newsom Signs Senator Wiener’s Landmark SB 79 Legislation Into Law,” posted October 13, 2025; “California Legislature Enacts SB 79 Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Public Transit, Streamlining Transit-Oriented Development, and Providing For SB 35 Ministerial Approval Process That Would Avoid CEQA Review,” posted September 29, 2025; “State Budget Bill Includes Landmark CEQA and Housing Law Changes,” posted July 15, 2025.)

Continue Reading CEQA Reform Role Reversal? SB 958 and SB 344 Illustrate How the Legislature Has Stepped Up to Provide CEQA Reform When the Courts Won’t

In an opinion filed August 11, and belatedly ordered partially published on September 2, 2026, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. One) partly reversed the trial court’s judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate challenging Imperial County’s (County) approval of a project consisting of a geothermal power plant, lithium extraction facility, and related facilities (project) near the Salton Sea and certification of the related EIR.  The Court held that no substantial evidence supported County’s conclusion that the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) could supply adequate water for the project’s anticipated 50-year lifespan and that the EIR failed as an informational document because it did not adequately discuss mitigation measures for possible future mandated Colorado River supply reductions.  Further, the EIR’s failure to address IID’s non-speculative concerns about the adverse air quality impacts caused by the Salton Sea’s recession due to foreseeable project-related reduction of water inflows to the sea also violated CEQA.  Comite Civico del Valle et al. v. County of Imperial (Controlled Thermal Resources (US), Inc. et al., Real Parties) (2026) ___ Cal.App.5th ___.  (In the unpublished portions of its opinion, which aren’t citable as precedent and won’t be further discussed here, the Court rejected appellants’ arguments that the County (1) failed to include several reasonably foreseeable future projects in its cumulative water supply impacts baseline, and (2) failed to engage in meaningful and timely tribal consultation addressing impacts to tribal cultural resources.)

Continue Reading Fourth District Holds Imperial County’s EIR for Salton Sea Geothermal Power/Lithium Extraction Project Lacked CEQA-Compliant Water Supply and Air Quality Analyses

In a published decision filed August 4, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 2) partially affirmed and partially reversed a judgment granting a writ setting aside Sonoma County’s (“County”) 2023 amended groundwater well permit ordinance.  The Court of Appeal rejected the trial court’s determination that County violated the public trust doctrine in approving the ordinance because plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing County’s analysis in that regard was arbitrary, capricious or entirely lacking in evidentiary support; however, applying a less deferential standard of review to plaintiffs’ CEQA challenges, it affirmed the trial court’s ruling that substantial evidence failed to support County’s claimed Class 7 and Class 8 categorical exemptions (for actions taken “to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource” or “the environment”) (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15307, 15308) or the common sense exemption (§ 15061(b)(3).)  Russian Riverkeeper et al. v. County of Sonoma (2026) 122 Cal.App.5th 382.  (While the Opinion’s main focus – consuming 29 of the Slip Opinion’s 40 pages – was its analysis of why plaintiffs failed to meet their heavy burden of showing County violated the public trust doctrine, this post will per this blog’s standard practice focus primarily on the Court’s CEQA holdings.)

Continue Reading First District Affirms Judgment Voiding Class 7 and 8 and Common Sense CEQA Exemptions for Sonoma County’s Groundwater Well Ordinance Amendments; Reverses Portion of Judgment Voiding Ordinance on Public Trust Grounds

The majority today holds that the words “negligible or no expansion of existing or former use” mean “negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.”  I agree, of course.  Who wouldn’t?”

 — Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Leondra R. Kruger

In an opinion filed on June 25, 2026, the California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) in Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 771, a case involving lead agency California Department of Conservation’s Geologic and Energy Management Division’s (“CalGEM”) determination that a project to convert a former oil and gas extraction well to a treated wastewater injection well was exempt under the CEQA Guidelines’ Class I categorical exemption for existing facilities.  The Supreme Court remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.  Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation (Reabold California, LLC, Real Party in Interest) 20 Cal.5th 22.  (My prior 9/9/24 blog post on the Court of Appeal’s original decision can be found here, and my 10/8/24 post on that Court’s modifications to its opinion on denial of rehearing can be found here.)

Continue Reading Tantalizing Tautology:  Supreme Court’s Narrow Decision In CEQA Guidelines Class I Exemption Case Holds Exemption’s Plain Language Requires Change in Existing Facilities’ “Use,” Not Environmental Risk of Changed Use, To Be “Negligible”; Reverses and Remands to First District for Further Proceedings Under Proper Standard

On June 30, 2026, the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) released its long-awaited Statewide Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mitigation Program Guidance (“Guidance”), implementing one of the more significant (and perhaps one of the least discussed) provisions of last summer’s AB 130. While much of the attention surrounding AB 130 focused on its housing and CEQA streamlining, the bill also created an entirely new statewide framework for mitigating transportation impacts under CEQA. In short, the Guidance establishes how mitigation contributions will be calculated, where funds may be invested, how VMT reductions will be measured and verified, how mitigation credits will be valued, and how HCD will administer the program through the Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Fund (TDIF).

Continue Reading AB 130’s Statewide VMT Mitigation Program: California’s New Framework for CEQA Transportation Mitigation

For a long time, one of the central tensions in California land use law has been the uneasy relationship between Housing Element Law and CEQA. Under Housing Element Law, local governments are required to identify and rezone sites to accommodate their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). At the same time, those same rezonings have generally been subject to CEQA review, creating opportunities for delay, litigation, and political opposition.

Continue Reading HCD Issues Guidance on New Housing Element Rezoning CEQA Exemption: Has CEQA Been Removed from the Housing Element Rezoning Process?

In a partially published opinion filed June 5, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 1) affirmed a judgment entered after Defendant and Respondent Bay Area Toll Authority’s (BATA) demurrer brought on statute of limitations grounds to a CEQA action challenging the “Bay Lights 360” Bay Bridge illumination project was sustained without leave to amend.  The lawsuit, which was the second CEQA challenge to Bay Lights 360 filed by Plaintiff and Appellant Mark Baker, was held barred because (1) Baker’s allegations regarding an encroachment permit issued by Caltrans to implement lead agency BATA’s project did not restart the statute of limitations, and (2) he was precluded from relitigating the statute of limitations issues that were conclusively resolved against him in his first action and resulted in that action’s dismissal.  The Court’s opinion analyzed the judicial confusion sown by the “on the merits” requirement included in some articulations of the issue preclusion doctrine, but, assuming its applicability, held that that requirement was satisfied by a prior dispositive demurrer ruling based on the statute of limitations.  Mark Baker v. Bay Area Toll Authority (Illuminate the Arts, Real Party in Interest) (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 1254.

Continue Reading Preclusion Confusion?  First District Holds Plaintiff’s Second CEQA Challenge to Bay Lights 360 Project Time-Barred Due to Preclusive Effect of Prior Unappealed Judgment on Demurrer Dismissing Action on Statute of Limitations Grounds; Finds Encroachment Permit Issued By Responsible Agency Caltrans to Implement Project Did Not Restart Limitations Period

“Fishing is an art of patience and timing.” – Daan Uijterwaal

In a published opinion filed May 29, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) affirmed a judgment denying a petition for a writ of ordinary mandamus to compel public agency respondents, including the City and County of San Francisco (“City”) and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”), to immediately obtain an amended water supply permit and open the City-owned Calaveras Reservoir in its natural state to public fishing.  Timothy James Dummer v. City and County of San Francisco, et al. (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 1009.  The Court held that the writ was properly denied because plaintiff and appellant Dummer had not demonstrated any failure by the public agency defendants to perform a ministerial duty under applicable law.

Continue Reading First District Holds CEQA Review of Calaveras Reservoir Fishing Program Proposed Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Requirements Is Prerequisite to Reservoir Owner San Francisco’s Application to SWRCB for Amended Water Supply Permit Allowing Public Fishing; Rejects Mandate Petitioner’s Arguments that State Statutes and Constitution Imposed Ministerial Duty on City to Provide Immediate Public Fishing Access to Reservoir In Its Natural State

Parties intervening in a CEQA case and actively litigating to defend the agency’s challenged decision in order to protect a direct and immediate interest are subject to being held jointly and severally liable for a successful plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, just like respondent agencies and real parties who similarly oppose such a lawsuit.  This is the lesson taught by the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 2) in its published decision, filed April 29, 2026, affirming the trial court’s $857,000 joint-and-several CCP § 1021.5 fee award against respondent Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), named real parties, and Croplife America (“Croplife” or “Intervenors”), a group of trade associations that had intervened to defend the CEQA litigation. Raptors are the Solution v. Croplife America (1st Dist. 2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 237.  Intervenors represented developers, manufacturers, formulators, and distributors of anticoagulant rodenticides which were the subject of DPR’s challenged decisions, and had successfully moved to intervene as of right in the action under CCP § 389(a) on the basis that their members had immediate, direct, and substantial financial and operational interests in the matter in litigation that would not be adequately represented by the initially named real parties or DPR.

Continue Reading First District Upholds Joint-and-Several Attorneys’ Fees Award Against Intervenor Trade Associations That Actively Participated In Defense of CEQA Action Successfully Challenging Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Rodenticide Decisions

In an important published opinion filed March 26, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 2) affirmed a trial court’s judgment denying the third CEQA writ petition filed over the last fifteen years challenging Caltrans’ EIR for a project to improve a one-mile stretch of U.S. Highway 101 running through Richardson Grove State Park in Humboldt County.  At issue in each action filed in the serial CEQA litigations – which the Court described as a “labyrinthine” “15-year litigation odyssey” – was the legal adequacy of the EIR’s analysis of the project’s impacts on adjacent old-growth redwood trees and their root systems.  Bess Bair et al. v. California Department of Transportation et al. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 579.  After an extensive procedural and legal analysis, the Court held the last petition was properly denied on res judicata grounds following the trial court’s discharge of peremptory writs in the two earlier actions by final orders that were never appealed.

Continue Reading When CEQA Litigation Becomes “One Battle After Another”:  First District Holds Res Judicata Precludes Third CEQA Action Challenging Caltrans’ Richardson Grove State Park Highway Improvement Project Where Petitioners Sought to Relitigate Issues Necessarily Resolved By Unappealed Final Orders Discharging Two Earlier Writs