92 Cal.App.5th 380
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Sandridge Partners sought and obtained from Stratford Public Utility District (SPUD) a gifted easement to install a 48-inch, ~12.5-mile irrigation pipeline that would cross under the Tulare Lake Canal on land owned by Sandridge and Roller. SPUD’s board approved the easement in October 2021 without any recorded CEQA preliminary review.
- TLCC (Tulare Lake Canal Company) discovered trenching and construction activity in January 2022, sued in trespass and filed a verified writ petition alleging SPUD violated CEQA by approving the easement without preliminary review; TLCC sought a preliminary injunction halting construction.
- The trial court found TLCC likely to prevail on the CEQA claim (SPUD’s approval was discretionary), but denied the preliminary injunction on the ground the relative balance of harms favored Sandridge; the court said the record lacked evidence of public harm from allowing the project to proceed.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal concluded it is a near certainty SPUD failed to comply with CEQA because the easement was a discretionary entitlement and the “project” includes the pipeline’s construction and operation; SPUD did not perform the required preliminary review or obtain project information.
- The appellate court held the trial court erred in failing to consider harm to the public interest in informed decisionmaking and public disclosure as part of the interrelated-factors balancing for injunctive relief; it reversed and remanded for reconsideration under the correct principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SPUD’s grant of an easement was a CEQA "project" requiring preliminary review | Granting the easement was a discretionary entitlement for use that triggered CEQA; the project includes construction and operation of the pipeline | The CEQA defect was trivial or subject to exemption; no substantial environmental harm shown | Held: Easement grant was a discretionary approval; the whole action (construction + operation) is a CEQA project and SPUD should have conducted preliminary review. |
| Whether harm to the public interest in informed decisionmaking/disclosure is a proper consideration in balancing harms for a preliminary injunction | Informational/procedural harm to public decisionmaking is a cognizable public interest harm and must be included in the balance; at the initial stage it need not be coupled with proof of environmental harm | Such procedural harms must be accompanied by a showing of likely environmental/irreparable harm or else injunctions would be automatic in CEQA suits | Held: Harm to public informational interests is a relevant harm to weigh; no presumption of irreparable harm and no rigid rule requiring a showing of environmental harm at the initial stage—balancing is case‑by‑case. |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying the preliminary injunction after finding likely CEQA success | TLCC: trial court erred by omitting public informational harm from the balance; given likely success and self-inflicted nature of project proponents’ delay, injunction was warranted | Sandridge: record lacks public harm; plaintiffs failed to show irreparable public/environmental harm and Sandridge would suffer substantial economic harm | Held: Trial court erred; there is a reasonable probability TLCC would have obtained a preliminary injunction if the public informational harm had been considered; matter remanded to reassess the interrelated factors. |
| Whether Sandridge/landowner had any disclosure obligation when seeking SPUD’s easement | TLCC: applicant seeking an entitlement must provide project data and the agency may require information under CEQA (§ 21160 and Guidelines) | Sandridge: private actions not subject to CEQA disclosure absent government approval; thus no duty to disclose private details | Held: When a private party applies for entitlement, CEQA authorizes/permits the agency to require necessary project information; Sandridge’s reliance on private-action noncoverage is not dispositive here. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Davis, 30 Cal.4th 528 (discusses California’s interrelated-factors test for preliminary injunctions)
- Butt v. State of California, 4 Cal.4th 668 (explains interplay between likelihood of success and balancing of harms)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (emphasizes CEQA’s informational and disclosure purposes)
- Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 7 Cal.5th 1171 (CEQA applicability and purpose; informational functions)
- Nelson v. County of Kern, 190 Cal.App.4th 252 (necessity of an accurate, complete project description for CEQA review)
- County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185 (project description and EIR adequacy principles)
- Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, 45 Cal.4th 116 (risk of ‘bureaucratic and financial momentum’ if environmental review postponed)
- Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (NEPA/injunction standards; rejecting presumption of injunction for procedural violations)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (four-factor injunction test under federal environmental law)