§Why CasetextPricing

Aqualliance et al v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, et al

MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT

69 Cited authorities

  1. Bennett v. Spear

    520 U.S. 154 (1997)   Cited 3,689 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Final Biological Opinion has "legal consequences," even though the action agency is not legally obligated to accept the opinion's recommendations or conclusions, because the opinion "alter the legal regime to which the action agency is subject"

  2. Cit. for Resp. Growth v. City

    40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 403 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Concluding “we determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures” in a case where appellant sought writ under both sections

  3. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California

    47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 621 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion if it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project and the future expansion will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects

  4. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S. Dep't of Transp.

    123 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 247 times
    Holding that executive orders with "specific statutory foundation" that do not expressly preclude judicial review are treated as agency action and reviewed under the APA

  5. American Rivers v. Natl. Mar. Fisheries Serv

    109 F.3d 1484 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 239 times
    Holding that a new biological opinion generally renders moot any challenges to the validity of the previous one

  6. Sierra Club v. City of Orange

    163 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 172 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Upholding EIR that briefly explained elimination of three possible alternatives

  7. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California

    6 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 248 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the decision to not recirculate an EIR where new studies released after public review "merely serve to amplify . . . the information found in the draft EIR" and "do not alter th[e] analysis in any way"

  8. In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Envtl. Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings

    43 Cal.4th 1143 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 162 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that “an EIR should not exclude an alternative from detailed consideration merely because it ‘would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives' ” unless it is otherwise infeasible or the lead agency has determined that it cannot meet the project's underlying fundamental purpose (quoting Guidelines § 1516.6(b))

  9. Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors

    87 Cal.App.4th 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 195 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Upholding EIR calling for developer payments to government fund as mitigation measure for traffic impacts

  10. Kern County Farm Bureau v. Allen

    450 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 165 times
    Affirming agency action if reasonable basis exists

  11. Section 4321 - Congressional declaration of purpose

    42 U.S.C. § 4321   Cited 3,500 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Describing the purposes of NEPA as including "encourag[ing] productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment"

  12. Section 1531 - Congressional findings and declaration of purposes and policy

    16 U.S.C. § 1531   Cited 1,672 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Finding and declaring that "various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct" while "other species ... have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction ...."

  13. Section 21000 - Legislative findings and declaration as to quality of environment

    Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21000   Cited 1,601 times   8 Legal Analyses

    The Legislature finds and declares as follows: (a) The maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern. (b) It is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man. (c) There is a need to understand the relationship between the maintenance of high-quality ecological systems and the general welfare of the people of the state, including their enjoyment

  14. Section 1536 - Interagency cooperation

    16 U.S.C. § 1536   Cited 1,320 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that every federal agency "insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species"

  15. Section 1540 - Penalties and enforcement

    16 U.S.C. § 1540   Cited 992 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Requiring such notice

  16. Section 500 - Administrative practice; general provisions

    5 U.S.C. § 500   Cited 598 times   12 Legal Analyses

    (a) For the purpose of this section- (1) "agency" has the meaning given it by section 551 of this title; and (2) "State" means a State, a territory or possession of the United States including a Commonwealth, or the District of Columbia. (b) An individual who is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a State may represent a person before an agency on filing with the agency a written declaration that he is currently qualified as provided by this subsection and is authorized to

  17. Section 21168.5 - Prejudicial abuse of discretion

    Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21168.5   Cited 510 times

    In any action or proceeding, other than an action or proceeding under Section 21168, to attack, review, set aside, void or annul a determination, finding, or decision of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with this division, the inquiry shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Ca.

  18. Section 21065 - Project

    Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21065   Cited 253 times
    Defining a "project" to include "activit[ies] directly undertaken by any public agency"

  19. Section 21002.1 - Policy applicable to use of environmental impact reports

    Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21002.1   Cited 204 times
    Directing agencies to identify "the significant effects on the environment of a project" under CEQA

  20. Section 21166 - Subsequent or supplemental report required

    Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21166   Cited 185 times
    Applying when prior CEQA review prompted an environmental impact report

  21. Section 402.14 - Formal consultation

    50 C.F.R. § 402.14   Cited 705 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Requiring disclosure of Draft Biological Opinions to private applicants if requested

  22. Section 15000 - Authority

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15000   Cited 557 times   13 Legal Analyses

    The regulations contained in this chapter are prescribed by the Secretary for Resources to be followed by all state and local agencies in California in the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. These Guidelines have been developed by the Office of Planning and Research for adoption by the Secretary for Resources in accordance with Section 2108-3. Additional information may be obtained by writing: SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES ROOM 1311, 1416 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 These

  23. Section 15165 - Multiple and Phased Projects

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15165   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking comprises a project with significant environmental effect, the lead agency shall prepare a single program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168. Where an individual project is a necessary precedent for action on a larger project, or commits the lead agency to a larger project, with significant environmental effect, an EIR must address itself to the scope of the larger project