13 California opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Planning and Conservation League v. Department of Water Resourcesgreen2 sentences2016(Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 432 ; Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892, 914, fn. 7 .) The present case is not similar. 2016(Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 432 ; Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892, 914, fn. 7 .) The present case is not similar. | 2 | 2 |
Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisorsgreen2 sentences2008(See, e.g., Stanislaus Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182, 200 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 625 ] [court invalidated an EIR for a large-scale residential development where the WSA addressed only the first five years of a 25-year phased project]; Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 370-371 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 579 ] [Court of Appeal invalidated an EIR based on findings including that the water supply analysis had not adequately addressed secondary water sources].) The Legislature also observed the noncompliance with S 2008(See, e.g., Stanislaus Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182, 200 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 625 ] [court invalidated an EIR for a large-scale residential development where the WSA addressed only the first five years of a 25-year phased project]; Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 370-371 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 579 ] [Court of Appeal invalidated an EIR based on findings including that the water supply analysis had not adequately addressed secondary water sources].) The Legislature also observed the noncompliance with S | 2 | 2 |
Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislausgreen2 sentences2008(See, e.g., Stanislaus Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182, 200 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 625 ] [court invalidated an EIR for a large-scale residential development where the WSA addressed only the first five years of a 25-year phased project]; Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 370-371 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 579 ] [Court of Appeal invalidated an EIR based on findings including that the water supply analysis had not adequately addressed secondary water sources].) The Legislature also observed the noncompliance with S 2008(See, e.g., Stanislaus Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182, 200 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 625 ] [court invalidated an EIR for a large-scale residential development where the WSA addressed only the first five years of a 25-year phased project]; Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 370-371 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 579 ] [Court of Appeal invalidated an EIR based on findings including that the water supply analysis had not adequately addressed secondary water sources].) The Legislature also observed the noncompliance with S | 1 | 2 |
California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Claritagreen2 sentences2007(Santa Clarita, at p. 722; see also California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1238-1239, 1244 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 434 ] (California Oak) [disapproving EIR for an industrial park because the water supply analysis relied, without adequate consideration of the attendant uncertainties, on Castaic’s purchase of 41,000 afa in imported State Water Project water].) Finally, Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 579 ] (Napa Citizens) considered the closely related issue of what constitutes an 2007(Santa Clarita, at p. 722; see also California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1238-1239, 1244 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 434 ] (California Oak) [disapproving EIR for an industrial park because the water supply analysis relied, without adequate consideration of the attendant uncertainties, on Castaic’s purchase of 41,000 afa in imported State Water Project water].) Finally, Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 579 ] (Napa Citizens) considered the closely related issue of what constitutes an | 1 | 1 |
Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisorsgreen2 sentences2007As explained earlier, an agency may abuse its discretion under CEQA either by failing to proceed in the manner CEQA provides or by reaching factual conclusions unsupported by substantial evidence. (§ 21168.5.) Judicial review of these two types of error differs significantly: while we determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures, "scrupulously enforcing] all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements" ( Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 , 276 Cal.Rptr. 410 , 801 P.2d 1161 ), we accord greater deference to the agency's substant 2007As explained earlier, an agency may abuse its discretion under CEQA either by failing to proceed in the manner CEQA provides or by reaching factual conclusions unsupported by substantial evidence. (§ 21168.5.) Judicial review of these two types of error differs significantly: while we determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures, "scrupulously enforcing] all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements" ( Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 , 276 Cal.Rptr. 410 , 801 P.2d 1161 ), we accord greater deference to the agency's substant | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova
green
2 sentences2026That case concerned an EIR for a proposed master planned community with “more than 22,000 residential units, housing as many as 60,000 people, together with schools and parks, as well as office and commercial uses occupying 480 acres of land.” (Id. at p. 422.) The primary issue was the adequacy 12 of the EIR’s water supply analysis, which was alleged to be “deficient in that it ‘fail[ed] to identify the actual source of most of the water needed to fill the project’s long-term demand,’ an analytical gap that ‘serve[d] to obscure the undisclosed environmental impacts of the project.’ ” (Id. at p 2023(Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 432 ; see Ocean Street, supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1019-1021 [upholding conclusion that project’s contribution was not cumulatively considerable because the project implemented and funded system improvements and conservation measures to reduce water supply demand].) The EIR’s water supply analysis was adequate. | 6 | 2016–2026 |
Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences2007We reversed on the ground that the EIR's evaluation of the availability of the water supply was inadequate. ( Scope I, supra, 106 Cal. App.4th 715 , 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 186 .) The EIR relied on water entitlements instead of actual water in analyzing water availability. ( Ibid. ) The County revised the water supply analysis, and recertified the EIR. 2007We reversed on the ground that the EIR's evaluation of the availability of the water supply was inadequate. ( Scope I, supra, 106 Cal. App.4th 715 , 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 186 .) The EIR relied on water entitlements instead of actual water in analyzing water availability. ( Ibid. ) The County revised the water supply analysis, and recertified the EIR. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz
green
1 sentence2016“An initial study is only a ‘preliminary analysis’ [citation] and the regulatory requirements regarding its contents are not as demanding as those imposed upon an EIR. [Citations.] ‘[A]n initial study is neither intended nor required to include the level of detail included in an EIR.’ [Citation.]” (Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1192 .) Selma fails to appreciate that “‘the ultimate issue is not the validity of the initial study, but rather the validity of the lead agency’s adoption of a negative declaration. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Friends of the Santa Clara River v. Castaic Lake Water Agency
green
1 sentence2010The Agency’s reliance on existing conditions instead of some speculative future alternative is reasonable and appropriate.” Coalition’s reliance on Friends of the Santa Clara River, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th 1 , is misplaced. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Barthelemy v. Chino Basin Municipal Water District
green
1 sentence2007(Barthelemy, supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at p. 1617 .) IV SCOPE challenges the adequacy of the EIR’s water supply analysis as it relates to the Kem-Castaic transfer. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.