This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Environmental Law
CEQA
Monterey Plus Project

Central Delta Water Agency, Center For Biological Diversity, California Water Impact Network, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, South Delta Water Agency v. California Department Of Water Resources,

Published: Nov. 8, 2014 | Result Date: Oct. 2, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 34-2010-80000561-CU-WM-GDS Bench Decision –  Petitioners

Court

Sacramento Superior


Attorneys

Petitioner

Adam Keats
(Center for Food Safety)


Respondent

Eric M. Katz
(Office of the Attorney General)


Facts

The Central Delta Water Agency, Center For Biological Diversity, California Water Impact Network, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, and South Delta Water Agency filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint against the California Dept. of Water Resources, involving an amendment to the State Water Project contracts and the transfer of land in Kern County that was developed into a groundwater bank by a local public agency.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs alleged that DWR was without legal authority to transfer the land that was later developed by local interests into a groundwater bank. As such, plaintiffs sought to overturn the transfer agreement between DWR and the current owners of the bank. Plaintiffs also argued that DWR's environmental impact report on the project violated the California Environmental Quality Act.

Result

In phase one, the court dismissed plaintiffs' challenge to the validity of the land transfer, finding the claim time-barred. In phase two, the court found that DWR's environmental impact report was adequate in all respects except one, and ordered DWR to revise the environmental impact report as to that single issue. The court declined to enjoin the water bank's operations while DWR prepares a revised environmental impact report, and the court left the underlying agreements undisturbed.


#125650

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390