Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District
205 Cal. App. 4th 650
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- CEQA requires an environmental impact report (EIR) if a public agency’s project may have a significant environmental effect, otherwise a negative declaration may be issued.
- California CEQA Guidelines 15162 and Public Resources Code 21166 govern when additional environmental review is required after an initial EIR or negative declaration.
- Imperial Irrigation District (IID) adopted the 2006 Equitable Distribution Plan (EDP) Resolution with a concurrent Final Negative Declaration finding no significant environmental impact.
- IID then adopted the 2007 EDP Regulations and, later, revised the plan with the 2008 EDP Regulations, each accompanied by Environmental Compliance Reports concluding no further CEQA review was warranted.
- Appellants sued alleging the 2008 Regulations required CEQA review; the trial court upheld IID’s conclusion under 21166 and §15162, and judgment denying the CEQA claim was entered.
- The court affirmed, holding that Guidelines §15162 validly implement §21166 and that there was substantial evidence that no additional environmental review was required for the 2008 Regulations or related actions, including a parish contract with Ormat for a geothermal project.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Guidelines §15162 under §21166 | Benton's view supports 15162 validity applying to negative declarations. | Guidelines §15162 properly implement §21166 and apply to post‑negative declaration changes. | Guidelines §15162 valid and applicable. |
| Whether 2008 EDP Regulations required additional CEQA review | 2008 changes altered priorities to favor industrial users, requiring an EIR. | No substantial change; 2008 regs clarified limits for new contracts and did not increase industrial priority. | No substantial change; no EIR required for 2008 regulations. |
| Appellate jurisdiction over partial dismissal | Dismissing other claims without prejudice might affect finality. | Absent stipulation to preserve dismissed claims, final judgment is final. | No appellate jurisdiction over remaining dismissed claims; judgment final notwithstanding non‑CEQA dismissals. |
| Ormat contract as substantial change in circumstances | Ormat water contract could change allocation and require review under §15162(a)(2). | Ormat contract involves small share and did not substantively change the EDP project. | Ormat contract did not require additional environmental review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Benton v. Board of Supervisors, 226 Cal.App.3d 1467 (Cal. App. Dist. 1st 1991) (affirms §15162 applicability to negative declarations and modifications)
- Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara, 7 Cal.4th 725 (Cal. 1994) (finality rule for judgments with partially dismissed claims)
- Temecula Band of Luiseño Mission Indians v. Rancho Cal. Water Dist., 43 Cal.App.4th 425 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1996) (180‑day/30‑day CEQA limitation periods for challenges)
- Inyo Citizens for Better Planning v. Inyo County Bd. of Supervisors, 180 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2009) (discusses substantial evidence standard under fair argument in CEQA)
- Moss v. County of Humboldt, 162 Cal.App.4th 1041 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2008) (applies guidelines to post‑negative declaration review)