The California Supreme Court has agreed to hear two new cases of interest to the planning and development community - the first dealing with water rights and the second dealing with administrative procedures before a Local Agency Formation Commission.
In the water rights case, City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (S0971728), the Supreme Court will determine whether a trial judge had the power to sweep aside all existing water-rights doctrines in allocation Mojave River Basin water to cities and farmers in the High Desert area of San Bernardino County.
The litigation arose out of an overdraft situation in the fast-growing area. In his ruling, Superior Court Judge E. Michael Kaiser consolidated a series of conflicting water claims and sought to make an "equitable apportionment" of water rights to all water users in the basin. The net result of this ruling is likely to be that alfalfa farmers will be forced to sell some of their water to the cities, which are more able to pay a higher price for it, and therefore go out of business.
Earlier this year, however, the Fourth District Court of Appeal overturned a portion of Kaiser's decision, ruling in favor of some of the alfalfa farmers. The Fourth District ruled that the judge had erroneously ignored the farmers' "overlying" water rights. However, the Fourth District stopped short of overturning the entire ruling. Rather, the court called upon all parties to stipulate to a new agreement that recognizes the farmers' water rights. "The trial court did not attempt to determine the priority of water rights, and merely allocated pumping rights based on prior production," the Fourth District wrote. "This approach elevates the rights of appropriators and those producing without any claim of right to the same status as the rights of riparians and overlying owners. The trial court erred in doing so." (CP&DR Legal Digest, July 1998.)
In the LAFCO case, Sierra Club v. San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (S072212), the Supreme Court will examine the question of whether environmentalists challenging the Gold Rush City project truly exhausted their administrative remedies at the LAFCO level before they filed suit.
Gold Rush City is a large development project proposed on an island in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1996, the San Joaquin County LAFCO approved annexation of the Gold Rush City property to Lathrop and adopted a statement of overriding considerations in certifying the environmental impact report.
After the LAFCO action, Eric Parfrey, an environmental consultant who has been critical of the Gold Rush City project, notified the LAFCO that requesting reconsideration and indicating that he would soon submit the required $700 fee. The following day he withdrew the request and then joined with the Sierra Club, the San Joaquin County Farm Bureau, and others in filing a lawsuit challenging the statement of overriding consideration.
San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Bob McNatt dismissed the case, claiming that Parfrey and the other plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies because they did not follow through on their motion for reconsideration. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed McNatt's ruling, relying on a rule first laid down in Alexander v. State Personnel Board, 22 Cal.2d 198 (1943) - even though, the court said, the rule is outmoded. (CP&DR Legal Digest, August 1998).
It would seem likely that the Supreme Court is interested in revisiting the Alexander rule, which states that where a rehearing is permitted under law it is a necessary step in exhausting administrative remedies even if it would appear to be a futile step. Reconsideration of the Alexander ruling could have broader implications beyond land-use law.
The U.S. Forest Service's supplemental environmental impact statement for a timber sale in the State of Washington was adequate, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
The case involved the Forest Service's decision to add to the sale more than 1,000 trees that were damaged by a fire. Several environmental groups sued, claiming the supplemental EIS did not adequately cover the environmental issues associated with this additional sale. But the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the Forest...
A California appellate court has affirmed that the Sierra Club and other environmentalists did not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit to challenge the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission's annexation of the Gold Rush City property to Lathrop.
However, the appellate court justices said that they consider the rule on which they based their decision "outmoded" and urged the California Legislature or the California Supreme Court to overturn it.
Gold ...
Reversing a trial judge's ruling, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled that a development company's lawsuit against its own engineering firm is not a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation - a so-called SLAPP suit - within the meaning of the state anti-SLAPP law. It is one of the few instances in which an attempt to use the state anti-SLAPP law has failed in the appellate courts.
SLAPP suits are often filed by developers against citizen groups or others who speak out against their...
The city of San Diego did not prosecute the owner of a sex club maliciously or selectively even though the city made a series of mistakes in granting him zoning approvals and then prosecuting him, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
Reversing a district court jury's decision, the three-judge panel concluded that the city did not violate Elbert Poppell's civil rights and that Zoning Administrator Sharren Carr should not be held personally liable because she was acting in a professio...
The City of Murrieta's was wrong to declare 3,500 acres of land blighted in order to create a redevelopment project area, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
In a lawsuit brought by the Riverside County government, the Fourth District found that the property is not "predominantly urban" nor is "blighted," both of which are required in order to create a redevelopment area.
With the exception of 200 acres of vacant county land that was withdrawn, the area in question "has been depicte...
The California Supreme Court has remanded one takings case against the Coastal Commission to the Second District Court of Appeal, in Los Angeles, to be reconsidered in light of the high court's decision in another takings case against the Coastal Commission.
In Coastal Commission v. Buckley, No. B081544, the Second District reversed a $2.1 million takings award against the California Coastal Commission, saying that the evidence on the record does not establish that the Commission's actions against a s...
Local governments in Nevada do have the standing to intervene in a lawsuit against the Interior Department, challenging the environmental impact process on a proposed water rights acquisition program, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
The case involves the Interior Department's attempt to implement a water rights acquisition program designed to settle complex and longstanding water rights issues associated with the Newlands Reclamation Project in western Nevada. Under Section 206 of t...
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.
A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer.
