Ever since Gov. Jerry Brown killed redevelopment in 2011, the conventional wisdom has been that eventually he would give it a second life - but only after he was sure the old system was completely dead, in a way that protects the state general fund, and probably after he himself won re-election to a final term.

Thirty years ago, in his first big majority opinion -- a land-use case from the California coast -- Antonin Scalia found the colorful and irreverent style that came to distinguish his career on the Supreme Court. And with one clean swipe, he knocked William Brennan out of the box and became the intellectual leader of the court.

What do touchdowns, trade shows, room service, rivers, and dorm rooms have in common? In San Diego, quite a bit.

The California Department of Food & Agriculture erred in preparing an environmental impact report for a program intended to eradicate with an invasive pest without examining the long-term consequences of an alternative program to control the pest rather than eradicate it, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled.

The holiday season continues to be a cruel time of year for California's redevelopment community. Last year, the state Supreme Court struck a blow on Dec. 29, allowing the state to abolish redevelopment agencies.  And this year, on Dec. 18, the state Department of Finance denied funding to many of the 240 of the 400 successor agencies who had appealed earlier rejections.

A summary judgment ruling April 7 by U.S. District Judge John Mendez upheld the Tahoe Regional Plan Update, endorsing a new regulatory approach to protecting Lake Tahoe that emphasizes incentives for more centralized, better mitigated development. His decision helps to ratify a high-level accord that in 2011 and 2012 resolved political tensions between California and Nevada over shared governance of Lake Tahoe.

California's Supreme Court justices were picking doubtfully Wednesday morning at the famous "CEQA in reverse" argument -- a claim that the California Environmental Quality Act can require an environmental impact report (EIR) not only when a project may threaten the environment, but also when a project would draw users to a place with hazardous environmental conditions.

The federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday issued a nationwide stay blocking enforcement of the new federal rule defining "Waters of the United States". For now the stay applies in all states, including California. While it lasts, the "Waters Of..." definition returns to the jumbled but familiar state it was in before the new rule took effect on August 28. Although the stay is only a temporary measure, it strengthens legitimacy and buys time for opponents of the Obama Administration's approach to clean water regulation.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, in determining the relevant parcel of land for purposes of analyzing a regulatory takings claim based on the denial of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of a Clean Water Act § 404 fill permit, the Court of Federal Claims should only consider the economic value relating to the single parcel of land containing the wetlands to be filled, and not the adjacent developed property and other wetlands in the vicinity owned by the same developer.  Here, the single parcel was never considered part of the same larger development.

Conflict over a proposed housing project in the Sonoma County city of Sebastopol offers proof of just how politically difficult infill development can be.

Recent polls suggest that Proposition 13 remains as popular today as when it was enacted. Yet, at the same time, residents demand a high level of services which exceed the ability of local officials to fund absent innovation in developing new funding strategies. This innovation in turn has generated a series of voter-enacted limitations designed to further restrict new revenue measures, absent voter approval. Part of this voter legacy is Proposition 218, enacted in 1996 (California Constitution Art XIIID).

Tuesday's California Supreme Court ruling in a CEQA case involving San Diego State lays down an important marker: State agencies can't claim that a mitigation measure is infeasible just because they didn't get a legislative appropriation to pay for it. It's the second time the Supreme Court has rejected an argument by Cal State that fiscal considerations under state law should trump CEQA.