The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published guidance on January 9, 2023, regarding how to evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires...more
The State Water Resources Control Board’s registrations of small water diversions are ministerial projects and hence exempt from CEQA. As such, allegedly erroneous registrations cannot be challenged under CEQA. Mission Peak...more
In Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin, 70 Cal. App. 5th 951 (2021), the court of appeal upheld a city’s reliance on the infill development categorical exemption under CEQA for a new gas station in an existing shopping...more
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which President Biden is expected to sign into law, contains some important changes to the federal environmental review process for surface transportation projects. Most...more
Title VIII of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (H.R. 3684), the infrastructure bill recently passed by the U.S. Senate, includes several important amendments to Title 41 of the Fixing America’s Surface...more
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently invalidated a 2016 rule that required a 30-day notice to affected state fish and wildlife agencies prior to filing a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered under the...more
Evidence about past wildfires and the risk of future wildfires impacting residents near a proposed project does not require the lead agency to prepare an environmental impact report unless there is substantial evidence...more
A city’s ban on short-term vacation rentals in the coastal zone constitutes “development” under the California Coastal Act. Therefore, the Coastal Commission must first approve a coastal development permit, an amendment to...more
A regional water board is not required to estimate the compliance costs for individual permittees before issuing a permit. City of Duarte v. State Water Resources Control Board, 60 Cal. App. 5th 258 (2021)...more
Courts reviewing an agency’s environmental assessment under NEPA may not speculate about potential significant environmental effects that are not supported by the record — they must defer to the agency’s reasonable...more
In Santa Clara Valley Water District v. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, No. A157127, 2020 WL 7706795 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2020), the court ruled that CEQA does not constrain an agency’s authority to...more
The First District Court of Appeal ruled that CEQA does not constrain an agency’s authority to administer and enforce any other laws, including those authorizing imposition of mitigation requirements. Thus, even after an EIR...more
A federal agency is not required to prepare an environmental impact statement for an action with uncertain environmental effects if the agency reasonably predicts that the effects will not be significant based on available...more
An agency must prepare an environmental impact statement when it fails to address expert scientific evidence that undermines its conclusions about a project’s environmental effects. An agency also must prepare an EIS when...more
The U.S. Department of Transportation has proposed comprehensive changes to update its procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act in response to the Council on Environmental Quality’s July 16, 2020, overhaul of...more
A recent Ninth Circuit decision offers guidance on evaluating connected actions and cumulative impacts under NEPA. The court held that an agency can defer consideration of an action’s cumulative impacts in an EIS when the...more
After a public agency approves a project, the agency’s actions to implement the project—in this case, applying for and accepting a streambed alteration agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife—are not...more
An agency could be equitably estopped from relying on the 35-day statute of limitations applicable to a CEQA Notice of Exemption where the agency had misled the public into expecting the agency would instead circulate a Final...more
Uncertainty has long reigned over the reach of the federal Clean Water Act, which applies to “navigable waters,” defined by statute only as “waters of the United States.” Over the last several decades of debate about federal...more
5/1/2020
/ Appeals ,
Clean Water Act ,
Direct Discharge ,
Discharge of Pollutants ,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ,
Functional Equivalent ,
Groundwater ,
Hawaii Wildlife Fund v County of Maui ,
Navigable Waters ,
NPDES ,
Permits ,
Point Sources ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
Vacated ,
Waters of the United States
Taking the next step in its efforts to streamline the environmental review process for projects under federal jurisdiction, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published proposed regulations on January 10...more
1/14/2020
/ CEQ ,
Congressional Review Act ,
Environmental Assessments ,
Environmental Policies ,
Environmental Review ,
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) ,
NEPA ,
Notice of Intent ,
Proposed Rules ,
Public Comment ,
Rulemaking Process
Automobile delay (as measured solely by roadway capacity or traffic congestion) cannot constitute a significant environmental impact, even for projects that were approved before the new CEQA guidelines on transportation...more
Unsubstantiated opinions from purported experts are not enough to require preparation of an EIR, the court of appeal recently held in Maacama Watershed Alliance v. County of Sonoma, 40 Cal. App. 5th 1007 (2019), a case in...more
An agency’s failure to maintain a historic building—“demolition by neglect”—is not a “project” subject to CEQA. Lake Norconian Club Foundation v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. A154917 (First...more
10/2/2019
/ Appeals ,
CEQA ,
Demolition ,
Department of Corrections ,
Duty to Act ,
Failure To Maintain ,
Historic Preservation ,
Historical Landmarks ,
Historical Rehabilitation ,
Hotels ,
NEPA ,
Statute of Limitations
The California Supreme Court clarified what activities are subject to CEQA in its recent decision in Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego, No. S238563, 2019 WL 3884465 (Aug. 19, 2019). First, the...more
A lead agency was not required to evaluate the housing-related impacts of a proposed hotel in a vacant building that was formerly used for rental housing. Hollywoodians Encouraging Rental Opportunities v. City of Los Angeles,...more