com/article/2014/09/06/california-oil-lawsuit-idUSL1N0R62SH20140906 (discussing the dismissal of a lawsuit against a CBR transloading facility that alleged noncompliance with CEQA on timeliness grounds). [1] See Cal. Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq. (containing CEQA); Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate, No. S1500CV284013 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Kern Cnty. Jan. 28, 2015), available at http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/BCT%20Petition%20-%20Final%20with%20Exhibits.pdf [2] See 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq; See Cal. Public Resources Code §§ 21000, 21001 [3] Id. at § 21080(a).
During the week of August 19, 2019, both the Appellate and Supreme Courts of California issued decisive opinions clarifying the parameters of agency action subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq., (“CEQA”). The courts were responding to repeated efforts by public entities to circumvent their CEQA obligations by redefining the actions that constitute a “project” subject to analysis under CEQA.
However, when local agencies use the tools at their disposal to anticipate, control far, and address potential tensions—ideally before they come to a head—everyone wins. 1 Cal. Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. 2 Cal.
The decision may also set up a showdown before the U.S. Supreme Court about whether federal law trumps California's environmental statutes. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq., imposes significant procedural and substantive requirements on private and public projects throughout the state. However, even a state law as broad as CEQA is limited by federal law.
[lxii] Ruling on Evidentiary Objections to Admission of Testimony and Exhibits into Evidence, Establishment of Deadline for Rebuttal Testimony and Exhibits, and Notice of Rebuttal Hearing Dates, February 21, 2017, Attachment A.[lxiii] Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Bay Delta Conservation Plan/California WaterFix Final EIR/EIS, 2016, available at http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/FinalEIREIS.aspx.[lxiv] See LAND letter to Hearing Officers re: New Information Pertaining to CWF Hearing Process in BDCP/CWF Final Environmental Impact Report/Statement , Feb. 16, 2017, available at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/california_waterfix/docs/petitions/2017feb/20170216_land_ltr.pdf.[lxv] See Ruling on Evidentiary Objections to Admission of Testimony and Exhibits into Evidence, Establishment of Deadline for Rebuttal Testimony and Exhibits, and Notice of Rebuttal Hearing Dates, February 21, 2017, p. 2.[lxvi] Cal. Pub. Resources Code, §§21000 et seq.[lxvii] 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.[lxviii]See, e.g., Department of Water Resources, Exhibit DWR-57, Testimony of John Bednarski, May 31, 2016, p. 16.[lxix]See Cal.
5 (“Section 3503.5”).4 Cal. Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.5 80 Fed. Reg. 30032 (May 26, 2015).6 14 Cal.
In a surprising decision, Surface Transportation Board Decision, Docket No. FD35861, December 12, 2014 (“Docket”), the Federal Surface Transportation Board (“Board”) ruled that the application of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq., to the 114 mile high-speed passenger rail line between Fresno and Bakersfield, California is preempted in its entirety by federal law. The Board’s decision is not only surprising in the context of prevailing legal authority, but also potentially important in the context of other modes of transportation.
Successful implementation may prove more difficult with the SCS and BAAQMD's CEQA guidelines working at cross-purposes. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq. Cal.