247 Cal. App. 4th 326
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Cadiz, Inc. owns land over a Mojave Desert aquifer containing an estimated 17–34 million acre-feet of fresh groundwater; much currently flows to hypersaline dry lakes and is lost to evaporation.
- Project: a public/private partnership in which Cadiz will extract groundwater (avg. 50,000 acre-feet/yr; up to 75,000 in a year) over 50 years (total 2.5 million acre-feet), convey it via a 43-mile pipeline to the Colorado River Aqueduct, and distribute to Southern California water agencies; 20% reserved for San Bernardino County.
- Santa Margarita Water District (Santa Margarita) is the designated CEQA lead agency; County of San Bernardino is a responsible agency. Fenner Valley Mutual Water Company (nonprofit formed by Cadiz) will operate the Project under oversight.
- Appellants (Center for Biological Diversity, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Sierra Club; and National Parks Conservation Association) sued via writ of mandate, challenging: (1) lead‑agency designation, (2) project description/objectives (conservation claim), (3) project duration certainty, and (4) pumped volumes/rates and EIR adequacy under CEQA.
- Trial court denied the petition; the Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding Santa Margarita was properly the lead agency and the EIR was adequate as an informational document under CEQA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper lead‑agency designation under CEQA (Guidelines §15051) | County (not Santa Margarita) should be lead because it can more objectively balance regional public interests and has general governmental powers | Santa Margarita participates in and supervises the Project, has principal authority over approval/operation, and thus qualifies as lead (or by agreement under §15051(d)) | Santa Margarita was properly designated lead: it carries out part of the Project and has greatest responsibility for supervising/approving the Project; the agency agreement was valid under §15051(d) |
| Project purpose/objectives: is describing Project as "conservation" misleading? | EIR misleading: Project will not save an acre‑foot of evaporation for each acre‑foot pumped; claimed evaporation savings unsupported/conflicting | EIR purpose and objectives (conserve water otherwise lost to brine/evaporation; improve supplies) are supported by studies and need not show 1:1 evaporation-to-pumping equivalence | Held: EIR objectives are neither inaccurate nor misleading; substantial evidence supports evaporation/recovery analysis |
| Project duration: is 50‑year term uncertain/unstable because of contemplated extensions? | EIR fails to meaningfully bound duration; potential extensions make term effectively indefinite and require analysis now | EIR sets a defined 50‑year term, any short extensions are limited and total volume remains capped; longer extensions would require new agreements and further environmental review | Held: Duration is stable and finite for CEQA purposes; speculative extensions need not be analyzed now |
| Pumping rate/total quantity: does EIR allow unbounded extraction or higher rates than disclosed? | Agreements and conveyance capacity suggest withdrawals beyond disclosed average/total are foreseeable, changing impacts | Plan and EIR specify average 50,000 af/yr and max 75,000 af/yr; contractual and Plan mechanisms (pro rata reductions, Plan limits) constrain extraction to disclosed amounts | Held: EIR and related documents do not permit withdrawals beyond stated averages/maximums; quantities and rates described are adequate and not misleading |
Key Cases Cited
- Mountain Lion Found. v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 16 Cal.4th 105 (1988) (CEQA is a comprehensive scheme to protect the environment)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 47 Cal.3d 376 (1988) (EIR is the "heart of CEQA" and must provide adequate informational detail)
- Central & West Basin Water Replenishment Dist. v. Southern Cal. Water Co., 109 Cal.App.4th 891 (2003) (groundwater rights and correlative use doctrines)
- Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto, 208 Cal.App.4th 899 (2012) (standard of review for CEQA writs: prejudicial abuse of discretion)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 62 Cal.4th 204 (2015) (CEQA review standards for agency action)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (2007) (substantial evidence and abuse of discretion standards)
- Planning & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency, 180 Cal.App.4th 210 (2009) (lead agency is the public agency that shoulders primary responsibility for a project)
- North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Mun. Water Dist. Bd. of Directors, 216 Cal.App.4th 614 (2013) (public agency carrying out a project may be the lead agency)
- City of Sacramento v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 2 Cal.App.4th 960 (1992) (agency that creates and implements plan is lead even if others enforce it)
- Friends of Cuyamaca Valley v. Lake Cuyamaca Recreation & Park Dist., 28 Cal.App.4th 419 (1994) (lead‑agency analysis focuses on who implements/controls project)
- RiverWatch v. Olivenhain Mun. Water Dist., 170 Cal.App.4th 1186 (2009) (responsible agencies’ authority does not automatically make them lead agencies)
- City of Santee v. County of San Diego, 214 Cal.App.3d 1438 (1989) (temporary or undefined project durations can render an EIR inadequate)