Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
20-55420
|
Amended Opinion: Inland Empire Waterkeeper v. Corona Clay
Because a failure to provide information about pollutant discharge violations could increase the risk of harm to recreational users of a nearby river, plaintiffs had standing to bring suit. |
Environmental Law |
|
A. Hurwitz | Nov. 8, 2021 |
C087688
|
Farmland Protection Alliance v. County of Yolo
A trial court did not have the authority under the California Environmental Quality Act to split a project's impact analysis across two types of environmental review documents. |
Environmental Law |
|
R. Robie | Nov. 4, 2021 |
G059709
|
Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin
Substantial evidence supported a city's finding that the size of a proposed construction project qualified for the infill exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
L. Marks | Oct. 28, 2021 |
D077568
|
McCann v. City of San Diego
The City of San Diego erred when it did not consider whether new projects were consistent with its own Climate Action Plan. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Haller | Oct. 12, 2021 |
19-35898
|
Upper Missouri Waterkeeper v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
A water quality variance regulation was not required to comply with the "highest attainable condition" from the outset, nor reach the base water quality standards by the end of the variance term. |
Environmental Law |
|
P. Watford | Oct. 7, 2021 |
20-16605
|
California River Watch v. City of Vacaville
A defendant can be held liable as a transporter of waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act even if it did not play a role in discarding the waste. |
Environmental Law |
|
P. Bumatay | Sep. 30, 2021 |
C088130
|
Sierra Watch v. County of Placer
An Environmental Impact Report that inadequately provides information about the regional setting fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
C. Blease | Sep. 24, 2021 |
20-55420
|
Inland Empire Waterkeeper v. Corona Clay
Because a failure to provide information about pollutant discharge violations could increase the risk of harm to recreational users of a nearby river, plaintiffs had standing to bring suit. |
Environmental Law |
|
A. Hurwitz | Sep. 21, 2021 |
20-71554
|
Food & Water Watch v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA's permit to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations must contain sufficient monitoring provisions to ensure wastewater discharge compliance. |
Environmental Law |
|
W. Fletcher | Sep. 17, 2021 |
19-71223
|
Association of Irritated Residents v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Because Environmental Protection Agency failed to provide reasoned explanation for approving state plan, rule was arbitrary and capricious. |
Environmental Law |
|
E. Miller | Aug. 27, 2021 |
20-35224
|
Native Village of Nuiqsut v. Bureau of Land Management
'Capable of repetition, yet evading review' exception to mootness did not apply where multitude of new circumstances rendered case moot. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Smith | Aug. 25, 2021 |
B303494
|
Save our Access v. Watershed Conservation Authority
Parking deficits do not affect project's environmental review unless it has impact 'on the environment.' |
Environmental Law |
|
E. Grimes | Aug. 23, 2021 |
F081389
|
Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. County of Inyo
Adequate notice that California Environmental Quality Act exemption will be considered is required for issue exhaustion requirement to apply. |
Environmental Law |
|
D. Franson | Aug. 19, 2021 |
19-35469
|
Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Property that was adjacent to jurisdictional tributary and that, together with similarly situated wetlands complex, had significant nexus to Priest Lake, was regulable under Clean Water Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Friedland | Aug. 17, 2021 |
20-15576
|
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
Conditions about where to dispose of dredged material was not an enforceable policy under the Coastal Zone Management Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Schroeder | Aug. 9, 2021 |
19-15535
|
Southern California Alliance of Publicly Owned Treatment Works v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency action is not final when subsequent agency decision-making is necessary to create any legal or practical consequences. |
Environmental Law |
|
E. Miller | Aug. 6, 2021 |
20-70092
|
Bahr v. Regan
Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that Arizona achieved statutory required reduction in ozone concentration by July 2018, in compliance with Clean Air Act, was valid. |
Environmental Law |
|
C. Bea | Jul. 29, 2021 |
20-55777
|
Whitewater Draw v. Mayorkas
Department of Homeland Security's Instruction Manual, which implements National Environmental Policy Act regulations, did not constitute 'final agency action' subject to review under Administrative Procedure Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Bybee | Jul. 20, 2021 |
A156150
|
Save Lafayette Trees v. East Bay Regional Park Dist.
California Environmental Quality Act requires claims to be filed within 180-days from agencies public 'decision to carry out or approve' project. |
Environmental Law |
|
I. Petrou | Jul. 6, 2021 |
C092069
|
Newtown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado
Public comments and observations concerning residents' wildfire safety concerns did not constitute substantial evidence supporting fair argument that project may have significant effect on environment. |
Environmental Law |
|
R. Robie | Jun. 21, 2021 |
20-382
|
Guam v. United States
Parties may seek contribution under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act only after settling CERCLA-specific liability. |
Environmental Law |
|
C. Thomas | May 25, 2021 |
20-35318
|
Friends of Animals v. Haaland
Fish and Wildlife Services' pre-file notice rule was set aside because it runs against Endangered Species Act's requirement to rely only on information from citizens' petitions. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Tunheim | May 18, 2021 |
19-71930
|
A Community Voice v. USEPA
Environmental Protection Agency's 2019 Rule was remanded because it did not set lead-based paint hazard standards based on health risks but instead focused on additional factors, contrary to Congress's directive. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Schroeder | May 17, 2021 |
19-71979
|
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Regan
Environmental Protection Agency lacked power to deny 2007 petition asking EPA to prohibit foods containing insecticide chlorpyrifos, without first making the federally required safety findings. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Rakoff | Apr. 30, 2021 |
A158723
|
Stop Syar Expansion v. County of Napa
Trial court correctly ruled that appellant failed to exhaust its administrative remedies as to water quality issues. |
Environmental Law |
|
K. Banke | Apr. 27, 2021 |
19-547
|
United States Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, Inc.
Deliberative process privilege protects from disclosure draft biological opinions reflecting the Environmental Protection Agency's preliminary views on its proposed rule regarding endangered species. |
Environmental Law |
|
A. Barrett | Mar. 5, 2021 |
16-56390
|
America Unites for Kids v. Rousseau
District court imposed punitive sanction under its inherent authority without providing criminal-type safeguards; thus, sanction was vacated under 'Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger.' |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Simon | Jan. 25, 2021 |
A157127
|
Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. v. San Francisco Bay
Plaintiff's project involved discharge of waste because it would lead to increased sedimentation in creek and obstruct flow of water, which would likely require periodic removal. |
Environmental Law |
|
T. Brown | Dec. 31, 2020 |
19-35008
|
Amended Opinion: NAEC v. USDOI
National Environmental Policy Act provides reasonable notice that intended scope encompassed actual future lease sales. |
Environmental Law |
|
Dec. 23, 2020 | |
18-16995
|
Center for Biological Diversity v. Zinke
Respondent acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to quantify emissions resulting from foreign oil consumption in its environmental impact statement as required by National Environmental Policy Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
R. Paez | Dec. 8, 2020 |