Pesticide Action Network etc. v. Cal. Dept. of Pesticide Reg.
A145632M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- California DPR approved amended labels (June 2014) for two dinotefuran-containing pesticides (Dinotefuran 20SG and Venom) expanding crop uses and increasing permitted application for Venom; DPR concluded no significant environmental impact on honeybees.
- PANNA sued under CEQA seeking writ of mandate and injunctive relief, arguing DPR failed to conduct adequate environmental review (no meaningful baseline, no alternatives, no cumulative impacts) and abused discretion; trial court denied relief, PANNA appealed.
- DPR operates a certified regulatory program under Pub. Resources Code § 21080.5, permitting substitute (abbreviated) environmental documents in lieu of EIRs or negative declarations—but certified programs remain subject to CEQA’s substantive goals and many requirements.
- DPR had initiated a statewide reevaluation of neonicotinoids (including dinotefuran) in 2009 due to potential bee hazards; reevaluation was ongoing when DPR approved these label amendments.
- DPR’s public reports for the two label amendments were brief, referenced a checklist (not in the record), concluded no significant impacts, and proposed no alternatives or mitigation; DPR later issued responses to public comments but did not recirculate.
- Court of Appeal held DPR’s substitute documents were legally deficient: DPR failed to demonstrate meaningful consideration of alternatives, failed to establish or disclose an environmental baseline, and failed to analyze cumulative impacts; judgment reversing trial court and directing rescission of approvals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of CEQA to DPR’s certified program documents | DPR’s review must satisfy CEQA’s substantive goals and standards despite procedural exemptions | DPR: certification exempts program from substantive CEQA requirements; its procedures suffice | Court: Certified-program exemption is limited; DPR remains subject to CEQA’s substantive standards and policy goals |
| Adequacy of consideration of alternatives | DPR failed to meaningfully consider or document feasible alternatives, including no-project | DPR: alternatives only required if DPR finds significant impacts; it found none based on its review | Court: DPR abused discretion—must affirmatively demonstrate meaningful consideration of alternatives; it did not |
| Adequacy of environmental baseline disclosure | DPR failed to define or disclose the baseline (actual neonicotinoid use levels) used to assess impacts | DPR: relied on existing data and uses already on other labels; no regulation required public description | Held: DPR must identify and explain baseline in substitute documents; DPR’s single conclusory statement was insufficient |
| Cumulative impacts and recirculation | DPR did not substantively analyze cumulative effects of adding/increasing uses while reevaluation was pending; public comment opportunity was therefore inadequate | DPR: cumulative effects will be addressed in ongoing reevaluation; prior presence of similar uses on other labels means no new cumulative impact | Held: DPR’s cumulative analysis was conclusory and inadequate; recirculation was required because documents were so inadequate that public comment was effectively meaningless |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry, 7 Cal.4th 1215 (1994) (certified regulatory programs remain subject to CEQA provisions not specifically exempted)
- Environmental Protection Information Center v. Johnson, 170 Cal.App.3d 604 (1985) (legislative intent: certified programs not a blanket exception from CEQA’s substantive goals)
- Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com., 16 Cal.4th 105 (1997) (substitute documents may be functionally equivalent to EIRs but agencies must comply with other CEQA requirements)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (2007) (standard of review: legal errors reviewed de novo; factual findings for substantial evidence)
- POET, LLC v. Air Resources Board, 218 Cal.App.4th 681 (2013) (distinguishes legal versus factual CEQA errors and applicable review standards)
- Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Dept. of Pesticide Regulation, 136 Cal.App.4th 1049 (2006) (certified program compliance with applicable statutes/regulations does not automatically resolve CEQA substantive challenges)
- Friends of the Old Trees v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection, 52 Cal.App.4th 1383 (1997) (even substitute documents must consider feasible alternatives)
- Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, 60 Cal.4th 1086 (2015) (agencies may apply fair argument standard to determine potential significant effects)
- Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast AQMD, 48 Cal.4th 310 (2010) (baseline selection discretion exists but must be supported by substantial evidence)
- Laupheimer v. State of California, 200 Cal.App.3d 440 (1988) (certified programs must at least preliminarily search for potential cumulative effects and assess significance)
- Joy Road Area Forest & Watershed Assn. v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection, 142 Cal.App.4th 656 (2006) (cumulative-impact analyses must be substantively meaningful)
- Ross v. California Coastal Com., 199 Cal.App.4th 900 (2011) (apply statutory and regulatory requirements to evaluate sufficiency of substitute documents)