Water Supply

Subscribe to Water Supply via RSS

“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) ___ Cal.App.5th ___.  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

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 Agents

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 Case

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 Analyses

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 Challenges

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 2025

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 Project

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

On October 7, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) issued a 6-page “Order Denying Respondent’s Petition for Rehearing and Modifying Opinion [No Change in Judgment]” (the “Order”) in Sunflower Alliance v. California Department of Conservation, et al. (Reabold California, LLC) (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1135, a case upholding a CEQA Guidelines Class 1 categorical exemption for an oil well conversion project (my 9/9/24 post on which can be found here).  The main thrust of the Order, a copy of which can be reviewed here, is to bolster the Opinion’s refutations of certain of Respondent Sunflower Alliance’s arguments, including its argument made on rehearing that the Secretary cannot have intended for categorical exemptions to call for an “early stage” assessment of environmental impacts; the Court called Sunflower’s position “wrong,” citing numerous examples of categorical exemptions calling for such assessments, which it noted function as limits on the application of the exemptions, and are also consistent with the agencies’ duty to consider environmental impacts when evidence in their records suggests an exception to the exemption may apply.

Continue Reading First District Denies Rehearing, Modifies Opinion in CEQA Guidelines Class 1 Categorical Exemption Case With No Change in Judgment

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 Guidelines, § 15301) by the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Geologic Energy Management (“CalGEM”) in approving a project to convert an oil well that previously pumped oil and water from a deep aquifer into an injection well that would pump excess water produced from oil extraction back into that aquifer.  Sunflower Alliance v. California Department of Conservation, et al. (Reabold California, LLC, Real Party in Interest) (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1135.  Because the project involved only minor physical alterations to the well, and the factual record showed the environmental risks from the well’s changed use – i.e., injecting water into the aquifer instead of pumping it out – were negligible, the project fell within the exemption. 

Continue Reading First District Holds CEQA Class 1 Categorical Exemption Applies To Approval of Project Converting Existing Oil Well Into Produced-Water Injection Well Because Changed Use Presents “Negligible” Risk of Environmental Harm