211 Cal. App. 4th 943
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- CBMWD challenges WRD's declared water emergency under CEQA; judgment for Central Basin authorizes a physical solution and carryover rules; WRD's declaration could affect carryover and five-year replenishment; trial court sustained WRD's demurrer, ruling CEQA does not apply and/or is trumped by the physical solution; matter involves court's continuing jurisdiction and related stays in related litigation; appellate court affirms denial and discusses mootness not applying.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CEQA apply to WRD's water emergency declaration? | CBMWD argues CEQA applies due to environmental effects. | WRD contends declaration is ministerial; no EIR required. | CEQA inapplicable. |
| If CEQA applies, does the physical solution trump CEQA? | CBMWD seeks CEQA review despite physical solution. | Physical solution controls; CEQA review unnecessary. | Physical solution trumped CEQA. |
| Are CBMWD's remaining arguments properly raised on appeal? | CBMWD challenging environmental implications of carryover. | Arguments not properly raised; limited review. | Arguments not considered; court affirms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hillside Memorial Park & Mortuary v. Golden State Water Co., 205 Cal.App.4th 534 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (physical solution ousts CEQA review when connected to groundwater management)
- California American Water v. City of Seaside, 183 Cal.App.4th 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (environmental aspects controlled by physical solution; CEQA not applicable)
- City of Lodi v. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist., 7 Cal.2d 316 (Cal. 1936) (court may enforce a physical solution beyond parties' agreement)
- Seaside (California American Water v. City of Seaside), 183 Cal.App.4th 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (physical solution governs environmental aspects of groundwater usage)
- Leach v. City of San Diego, 220 Cal.App.3d 389 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (distinguishing discretionary vs. ministerial CEQA analysis)