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 (In the unpublished portions of its opinion, which aren’t citable as precedent and won’t be further discussed here, the Court rejected appellants’ arguments that the County (1)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 AnalysesWater Supply
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
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 GroundsFirst 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
“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 StateSecond District Reaffirms That CEQA Doesn’t Apply To Courts Or Their Agents
In a lengthy published opinion filed March 5, 2026, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) affirmed the trial court’s judgment adopting a “physical solution,” to be implemented by a watermaster, in a multiparty, three-phase litigation adjudicating competing groundwater rights in a Ventura County basin pursuant to the procedures of Code of Civil Procedure section 830 et seq. Los Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition v. Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 et al. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 1170. While the constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and judicial water law rules and principles discussed and applied in the case are important and interesting, I’m not going to write further about them here; rather, in keeping with this blog’s subject matter, I’ll stick to the two paragraphs of the Court’s 45-page opinion that disposed of the novel CEQA arguments raised by a dissatisfied plaintiff and appellant.
Continue Reading Second District Reaffirms That CEQA Doesn’t Apply To Courts Or Their AgentsThird District Denies Rehearing, Modifies Opinion in “Delta Program” DWR Bond Validation Case
In a 7-page Order filed January 28, 2026, the Third District Court of Appeal denied Appellant DWR’s request for rehearing and modified its partially published opinion in Department of Water Resources v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California et al. / Sierra Club et al. v. Department of Water Resources (previously published at 117 Cal.App.5th 751, and which I previously posted on here), with no change in the judgment. The Order, which can be viewed here, makes mostly minor revisions, such as adding supporting citations, correcting punctuation and typographical errors, and making clarifying corrections in the technical descriptions of certain proposals and Feather River Project components. (Order, at pp. 2-6.) The Order’s most substantive change is its elimination and narrowing of certain dicta in language near the Opinion’s end, regarding hypothetical “problematic” results that may have resulted from a contrary judgment validating DWR’s Bond Resolutions.
Continue Reading Third District Denies Rehearing, Modifies Opinion in “Delta Program” DWR Bond Validation CaseThird District Affirms Judgment Upholding American Canyon’s EIR for Industrial Warehouse Project and Related WSA Against Vallejo’s CEQA and Water Code Challenges Based On Allegedly Inadequate Water Supply Analyses
By Arthur F. Coon on
In a published opinion filed January 14, 2026, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the Sacramento County Superior Court’s judgment denying the City of Vallejo’s (“Vallejo”) writ petition challenging the City of American Canyon’s (“American Canyon”) EIR certification for and approval of the Giovannioni Logistics Project, a 2.4 million square foot warehouse complex on a 208-acre tract of undeveloped, industrially zoned land in American Canyon (the “Project”). City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon (Buzz Oates LLC, et al., Real Parties in Interest) (2026) 117 Cal.App.5th 1112. The Court rejected appellant Vallejo’s arguments that the Project EIR violated the water supply disclosure requirements of CEQA and its Guidelines, and also the provisions of Water Code sections 10910 and 10911.
Continue Reading Third District Affirms Judgment Upholding American Canyon’s EIR for Industrial Warehouse Project and Related WSA Against Vallejo’s CEQA and Water Code Challenges Based On Allegedly Inadequate Water Supply AnalysesThird District Affirms Judgment Denying Validation of DWR Bonds to Finance Amorphously Defined “Delta Program” Conveyance Facilities As Unauthorized By Water Code Section 11260, Mooting Appeals of Unsuccessful CEQA Challenges
In a mostly published 43-page opinion filed December 31, 2025, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment in consolidated actions consisting of the Department of Water Resources’ (“DWR”) in rem validation action seeking to validate its authority to issue revenue bonds for the “Delta Program,” and a reverse-validation action brought under CEQA, the Delta Reform Act, and the public trust doctrine by various environmental NGOs, and other governmental agencies and entities, challenging that authority. Department of Water Resources v. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California et al. / Sierra Club et al. v. Department of Water Resources (The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California et al., Real Parties in Interest) (2025) _117 Cal.App.5th 751. The Court of Appeal held the trial court properly denied validation of DWR’s authority to issue revenue bonds under Water Code § 11260 to finance the planning, acquisition, and construction of the nebulously defined “Delta Program” as a supposed modification of the existing “Feather River Project” component of the State Water Project (“SWP”), which is one of many separate and distinct legislatively-authorized “Units” of the Central Valley Project (“CVP”).
Continue Reading Third District Affirms Judgment Denying Validation of DWR Bonds to Finance Amorphously Defined “Delta Program” Conveyance Facilities As Unauthorized By Water Code Section 11260, Mooting Appeals of Unsuccessful CEQA ChallengesCEQA Roundup: November 2025
By Arthur F. Coon on
Posted in Aesthetic Impacts, Affordable Housing, Alternatives, CEQA Guidelines, Climate Change/GHG, Cumulative Effects, Land Use, Legislation, Litigation, Mitigation, Piecemealing, Project Definition, Project Description, Reform, Resources, Standard of Review, Subsequent Review, Uncategorized, Water Supply
As we approach the end of the month and the Thanksgiving holiday, without a new published CEQA precedent (yet, anyway) to write about, I thought I’d put together a brief “news roundup” of recent items that could be of interest to readers.
Continue Reading CEQA Roundup: November 2025Third District Holds CEQA’s “Whole of an Action” And “Piecemealing” Principles Do Not Apply to Delta Reform Act’s “Certification of Consistency” Requirement, Reverses Preliminary Injunctions Against Non-Implementation, Preconstruction Geotechnical Work for Delta Tunnel Project
By Arthur F. Coon on
In a published opinion filed October 17, 2025, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s preliminary injunction orders in five related actions prohibiting preconstruction geotechnical work to be undertaken by the Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) in connection with the Delta tunnel project (formally known as the “Delta Conveyance Project”). The Court of Appeal held the trial court erred in interpreting a provision of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009 (the “Delta Reform Act” or “Act”; Wat. Code, §85000 et seq.), requiring state agencies to certify to the Delta Stewardship Council that “covered actions” (as statutorily defined) are consistent with the Delta Plan before implementing them. (the “certification of consistency” requirement; id., §85225). Specifically, it rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the certification of consistency requirement “incorporated” CEQA’s “piecemealing” and “whole of an action” concepts so as to render the proposed preconstruction geotechnical work, which is not a “covered action,” inseparable from the relevant “covered action” – i.e., the Delta tunnel project – and thus unable to proceed absent a certification of consistency. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, et al v. Department of Water Resources (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 342. Finding plaintiffs had thus failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits of their action, the Court of Appeal accordingly remanded the matters to the trial court with directions to vacate the preliminary injunction orders and reconsider plaintiffs’ motions in light of its conclusion that DWR was not required to submit a certificate of consistency to the Delta Stewardship Council before engaging in preconstruction geotechnical work.
Continue Reading Third District Holds CEQA’s “Whole of an Action” And “Piecemealing” Principles Do Not Apply to Delta Reform Act’s “Certification of Consistency” Requirement, Reverses Preliminary Injunctions Against Non-Implementation, Preconstruction Geotechnical Work for Delta Tunnel ProjectFirst District Addresses Significant CEQA Issues Relating to Wildfire Risk, GHG Emissions, and Water Supply Impacts in Lake County Resort Development Case
On November 22, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal’s (Div. 4) partially-published opinion in People of the State of California ex rel. Bonta v. County of Lake (Lotusland Investment Holdings, Inc., et al. Real Parties in Interest) (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222 (No. A165677) became final. The published part of the decision addresses several significant CEQA topic areas, including the adequacy of an EIR’s discussions of impacts related to a large rural resort development project’s wildfire risks and water supply impacts, and the propriety of a lead agency’s condition of approval imposing a carbon credit purchase obligation to potentially mitigate the project’s significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in light of acknowledged uncertainty as to whether such credits would be available. (As a matter of disclosure, Respondent County of Lake was represented in the trial and appellate proceedings in this case by this post’s authors, Miller Starr Regalia attorneys Arthur Coon and Matthew Henderson.)
Continue Reading First District Addresses Significant CEQA Issues Relating to Wildfire Risk, GHG Emissions, and Water Supply Impacts in Lake County Resort Development Case