Water Supply

Subscribe to Water Supply via RSS

By Cori Badgley

In Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District grappled with several issues related to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) along with the Senate Bill 610 water supply analysis, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, and general plan consistency. Among the court’s various holdings, the court found examples of improper deferral of mitigation under CEQA. Additionally, the court refined the definition of a “probable future project” for purposes of cumulative impacts. The project at issue involved the development of an aggregate mining operation in the unincorporated area of Madera County ("County").Continue Reading Court Discusses Improper Deferral of CEQA Mitigation and Provides Definition for “Probable Future Projects”

By Katherine J. Hart

In Moss v. County of Humboldt, et al (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1041, the Court of Appeal (1st Appellate District) held that a project previously studied under CEQA need not undergo supplemental CEQA review upon reapplication of the same project unless new information (supported by substantial evidence in the record) indicates there will be potential environmental impacts.
Continue Reading Re-Approval of Expired Entitlements Can Track Prior CEQA Documentation, Subject to the Substantial Change Doctrine

By William W. Abbott

The Delta, the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, is ground zero in the debate over California water. CALFED was born as a consortium of 18 federal and state agencies. In 2000, CALFED certified a programmatic EIR/EIS. After appeals, the Supreme Court subsequently granted review and on June 5, 2008, issued an opinion. In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (June 5, 2008) 2008 Cal. LEXIS 6737. In this opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed the legal adequacy of the programmatic document and also gave guidance on the evaluation of alternatives and the level of detail necessary in programmatic EIRs.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court affirms the legal adequacy of the CALFED EIR; provides guidance on evaluation of alternatives and level of detail for first tier EIRs

By Cori Badgley

On April 16, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an opinion in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. Gutierrez (Case No. 1:06-cv-00245) that invalidated portions of the 2004 biological opinion (“BiOp”) issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) for the Long-Term Central Valley Project and State Water Project Operations Criteria Plan (“2004 OCAP”).
Continue Reading California’s Water Supply Potentially Endangered by Invalid Biological Opinion

By Janell M. Bogue

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova addressed the sufficiency of future water supplies for a long-term, large scale development. In the case of Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles, the Second Appellate District determined that an EIR for a long-term project met the requirements discussed in the Vineyard case.
Continue Reading Paper Water Revisited: Second Appellate District Applies the Principles of Vineyard

by William W. Abbott Although never verified as the source, Mark Twain is considered the originator of the quote “whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting.” Had he lived until the enactment of CEQA, perhaps he would have added something to his saying. As land use practitioners know, the water supply/CEQA/Subdivision Map Act interface has raised the bar in terms of what it takes for large development projects to move forward. A repeated challenge in this area is the dichotomy between theoretical water deliveries by the state and federal water contractors and actual deliveries, the difference commonly referred to as “paper water.” As readers of this newsletter may remember, a development project EIR analysis of water supply which concludes that adequate water exists based upon paper water is likely to be set aside by a reviewing court (see the March 2003 Abbott & Kindermann article on Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles). This has been the trend in a number of court decisions going back to at least the year 2000. Jump forward to 2005, and the water supply challenge is neither fixed nor improving, and EIRs are still being successfully challenged.
Continue Reading Paper Water and Project Approval

by Robert T. Yamachika The Third District Court of Appeal recently decided a case addressing the interplay of water supply analysis and land use planning. As many readers of aklandlaw working papers already know, the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001) and Senate Bill 221 (Chapter 642, Statutes of 2001) in 2002 to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 and SB 221 are companion measures which seek to promote more collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties. Both statutes require detailed information regarding water availability to be provided to the city and county decision-makers prior to approval of specified large development projects. Both statutes also require this detailed information be included in the administrative record that serves as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by the city or county on such projects. For more on SB 610/221, see Abbott & Kindermann’s November 2004 article on the legislation.
Continue Reading New CEQA Guidance on Water Supply

by Diane G. Kindermann Henderson

California’s legislature has implemented statutory requirements aiming to remedy the communication gap between water suppliers and municipalities when considering land use planning decisions. Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 require detailed information regarding water availability to be provided to local decision makers of cities and counties prior to approval of specified large development projects. In addition, both statutes require this information be included in the administrative record to serve as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by the city or county on such projects. The Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001, prepared by the California Department of Water Resources, is a step-by-step manual providing direction on how to effectively complete a SB 610 water assessment and a SB 221 verification of sufficient water supply.
Continue Reading Attention Water Suppliers and Municipalities: A Step-By-Step Guide to Implementing SB 221 and SB 610 Has Arrived

by Robert T. Yamachika

Richmond v. Shasta Community Services District (2004) 32 Cal.4th 409

The issue in this case was whether a water district’s increase of its two component water connection fees violated Proposition 218’s voter approval requirement. Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, was approved by California voters in 1996 and added articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution. The Shasta Community Services District (“SCSD”) operates a water system for residential and commercial users and a volunteer fire department that provides fire suppression and emergency services.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Rules that Water Connection Fees for New Connections not Subject to Proposition 218’s Voter Approval Requirement