Environmental law case review

Environmental law case review - [No. C044989. Third Dist....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: [No. C044989. Third Dist. Mar. 22, 2005.] SIERRA CLUB, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE WEST SIDE IRRIGATION DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents; CITY OF TRACY, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. [No. C045015. Third Dist. Mar. 22, 2005.] SIERRA CLUB, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BANTA-CARBONA IRRIGATION DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents; CITY OF TRACY, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. S UMMARY The trial court denied an environmental organizations petitions for writs of mandate to overturn irrigation districts decisions to assign water rights to a city. The organization alleged that the districts violated the California Envi- ronmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.), by using negative declarations instead of environmental impact reports. (Superior Court of San Joaquin County, Nos. CV018901 and CV018795, Bobby W. McNatt, Judge.) The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, observing that the rule prohibiting segmentation of a CEQA project, as defined in Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, 15378, subd. (c)(1), into smaller projects did not apply because the assignments, which involved separate water rights and independently negotiated agreements, were two separate projects independent of each other. Under the circumstances, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, 15165, permitted review of the assignments separately. The city and the districts lawfully agreed that each district would serve as lead agency for its own assignment, in accordance with Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, 15051, subd. (d). The districts reasonably determined under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, 15064, subd. (i)(1), that the impacts were not cumulatively considerable. The discussions of 690 S IERRA C LUB v. W EST S IDE I RRIGATION D IST . 128 Cal.App.4th 690; 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 223 [Mar. 2005] growth-inducing impacts in the general plans environmental impact report were properly incorporated into the initial studies. Water supplies to the city were considered. (Opinion by Nicholson, J., with Davis, Acting P. J., and Robie, J., concurring.) H EADNOTES Classified to California Digest of Official Reports (1) Pollution and Conservation Laws 2.9California Environmental Quality ActProceedingsJudicial ReviewAbuse of Discre- tion. An appellate courts role in reviewing a decision under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.), is the same as the trial courts role. The inquiry concerns whether the public entities abused their discretion. Under CEQA, abuse of discretion is established if the public entities did not proceed in the manner required by law, or if their decisions are not supported by the requisite amount of evidence, as stated in Pub. Resources Code, 21168, 21168.5....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 10/02/2008 for the course CRP 404 taught by Professor Jenks during the Spring '08 term at Cal Poly.

Page1 / 15

Environmental law case review - [No. C044989. Third Dist....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online