Articles

Subscribe to Articles via RSS

In early 2011, the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) released three draft statewide NPDES permits for public review and comment. To say that these permits were not well-received by the regulated community (i.e., small municipalities, CalTrans and industrial business owners) is an understatement. In a rare intervention by members of the state legislature into the realm of state agencies, the Senate Select Committee on California Job Creation and Retention held an informational hearing on the draft permits on October 6, 2011. The message from the hearing came across loud and clear: time for a do-over.
Continue Reading Senate Committee Scolds SWRCB in Recent Hearing on Draft Statewide Permits

In a CCP section 1021.5 fee award, the trial court has the discretion to award fees for the time spent in administrative proceedings.
Continue Reading Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5 Authorizes a Prevailing Party to Recover Its Attorney Fees for Administrative Time As Well As in Litigation

In Sierra Forest Legacy v. Sherman, 646 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued four separate opinions that, collectively, held that the U.S. District Court properly found that the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment and related Basis Project (“2004 Framework”) issued by the U.S. Forest Service did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act. However, when the District Court applied a 2007 amendment to the 2004 Framework retroactively, the District Court failed to properly determine whether the 2004 Framework violated the National Forest Management Act.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Issues Mixed Ruling Re NEPA and NFMA Challenges to 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

In Tafti v. County of Tulare (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 891, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District held that a local enforcement agency violated the due process rights of a property owner when it failed to provide adequate notice of the nature of an administrative appeal hearing, where an administrative law judge recalculated a civil penalty in the amount of $1,148,200, and where the penalty amount stated in the original enforcement order that the owner appealed from was $137,778. The enforcement order’s description of the appeal rights gave the misleading notion that the hearing, if requested, would be limited to the factual issues set forth in the enforcement order; and nothing in the order alerted the owner to the fact that if he requested a hearing, it would reopen the civil penalty issue and allow the administrative judge to determine anew, without any limitation to the amount set forth in the enforcement order, the total assessment of civil penalties.
Continue Reading Property Owner Hit With $137,778 Civil Penalty, Appeals, And (Without Adequate Notice) Ends Up A $1,148,200 Penalty! Court Reverses for Lack of Due Process.

This case involved the perfect storm of events resulting in the flooding of the plaintiffs’ properties. Plaintiffs sued the county in court claiming that the flooding was a result of county’s actions and constituted a taking. The appellate court disagreed and found in favor of the county.
Continue Reading A Series of Unfortunate Events… That are Not Compensable under Inverse Condemnation

On September 16, 2011the Attorney General submitted a letter commenting on the draft EIR for SANDAG’s Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy stating the draft inadequately addressed local air pollution and is inconsistent with the State’s climate change goals.
Continue Reading Attorney General Comments on Draft EIR for First SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy

Register Now! ~ Only $35

Two Locations to Choose From

November 9, 2011 – Lodi, CA and November 17, 2011 – Plymouth, CA

This seminar will guide winery and vineyard owners and operators through cost-effective strategies to address current environmental, legal and technical challenges.

More information, tentative agenda and registration click here.