Welcome to
CEQA News You Can Use, a quarterly production of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP’s Natural Resources lawyers. This publication provides quick, useful bites of CEQA news, which we hope can be a resource to your real-time business decisions. That said, it is not and cannot be construed to be legal advice. Enjoy!
CEQA can’t stop, won’t stop regional board permit
Does CEQA prevent a Regional Water Quality Control Board from issuing its own permit under state water quality law? In
Santa Clara Valley Water District v. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 199, the First Appellate District answered “no,” holding that CEQA does not bar a regional board from imposing additional requirements on a flood control project, even after the project’s final environmental impact report (FEIR) was certified. To protect against Berryessa Creek flooding, the Army Corps of Engineers designed a flood control project and named the Sa
Updated on February 18, 2021 at 8:31 am
NBC Universal, Inc.
The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Marijuana Eradication Team (MET) is wrapping up a series of raids on illegal pot grows this week. The team, along with state agencies, spent the summer raiding eight different grows many run by crime cartels.
It’s legal to use pot in California, but it’s not legal to grow it on public land, park or on somebody’s private property without them knowing about it.
Generally, law enforcement says these illegal grows are the work of a crime cartel.
“They’re using somebody else’s water, doing damage to the environment, leaving a mess, and it’s not the legal kind of grow,” said Laurie Smith of the Sheriff’s Department.
In an opinion filed on December 29, 2020, the First Appellate District in
Santa Clara Valley Water District v. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board upheld a Responsible Agency’s imposition of additional mitigation more than a year after it had issued an initial approval for the project. Although the court was careful to say that it was addressing “unique circumstances” that would “seldom arise,” the decision is potentially problematic for project proponents, and especially for public agencies trying to pursue necessary public-infrastructure projects.
In January 2016, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (the “Water District”) certified an environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a flood-control project on Berryessa Creek (the “Project”) that would, among other things, provide protection for a new BART station that was under construction. Under pressure from a State congressional delegation
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
In a published opinion filed December 29, 2020, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate filed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) challenging waste discharge requirements (WDRs) belatedly imposed by a responsible agency, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Board), on lead agency District’s flood control project.
Santa Clara Valley Water District v. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (2020) Cal.App.5th . The case involved highly unique facts, and a number of interesting legal issues concerning the Board’s authority under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the state Porter-Cologne Act, and CEQA.