Background

• Picayune Rancheria seeks CEQA review of Governor Brown's concurrence in a federal Indian gaming determination; the dispute centers on whether the Governor is a CEQA “public agency.”
• Governor Brown concurred in a Interior Dept. two-part determination approving North Fork Tribe’s new casino without CEQA review.
• North Fork’s land acquisition and gaming project would be near Picayune’s reservation; Interior’s EIS preceded state actions.
• The governor’s concurrence preceded a tribal-state gaming compact and land taken into trust for North Fork; CEQA review was not completed.
• Picayune alleged the Governor’s action constituted CEQA “approval” of a project and thus required CEQA review, which demurrers argued was improper as Governor is not a public agency under CEQA.
• Trial court sustained demurrers, and the court of appeal affirmed, holding the Governor is not a CEQA “public agency.”

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Arcata Nat. Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 59 Cal.App.3d 959 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) (CEQA applies to state agencies; official authorizations analyzed)
• Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal.3d 247 (Cal. 1972) (CEQA interpretation to protect environment within statutory language)
• Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Comm., 13 Cal.3d 263 (Cal. 1975) (CEQA broad policy statement but statutory language governs)
• Leavitt v. County of Madera, 123 Cal.App.4th 1502 (Cal. App. 2004) (Explicit vs. implicit CEQA interpretation; mandatory language)
• Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Comm., 41 Cal.4th 372 (Cal. 2007) (CEQA guidelines and statutory interpretation limits)
• In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061 (Cal. 2005) (Statutory interpretation principles under CEQA)