This week, Consumer Advocacy Group (CAG), a non-profit organization that files numerous Proposition 65 (Prop 65) lawsuits each year, issued notices of violation alleging that 15 companies violated California law by selling rice containing arsenic (and in some instances, lead) without a Prop 65 warning. The notices targeted a wide a range of companies, from small family-owned rice producers, to regional grocery chains and cooperatives. The same organization, CAG, issued a handful of similar notices to other companies in late 2013, also alleging the presence of arsenic in rice products sold in California without a Prop 65 warning.Continue Reading New Wave of Prop 65 Notices Target Rice Industry
Laws / Regulations
Caltrans EIR Analysis of Impacts to Redwoods Found Inadequate
By Allison Smith on
In Trisha Lee Lotus v. Caltrans (Jan. 30, 2014), the First District Court of Appeal reversed a Humboldt County Superior Court decision, and ruled that a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) environmental impact report (EIR) failed to adequately analyze the significance of the project’s impacts to old-growth redwood root systems in a state park.
Caltrans prepared the EIR for the realignment of a 1-mile segment of U.S. Route 101 that passes through Richardson Grove State Park, which is home to old growth California redwoods. The project’s goal is to accommodate standard-sized trucks that have been restricted from using the road due to its size and configuration. Petitioners-appellants, including the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Californians for Alternatives to Toxics (jointly, “Lotus”), challenged the adequacy of the EIR on several grounds, and won on appeal on one issue.Continue Reading Caltrans EIR Analysis of Impacts to Redwoods Found Inadequate
Failure to Comply With LAFCO Procedural Requirements Proves Fatal to CEQA Suit
By Timothy Taylor on
In Protect Agricultural Land v. Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission (filed January 28, 2014) (“Protect Agricultural Land”), the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”), and squarely held that all “lawsuits seeking to set aside a LAFCO approval…
Challenge Against DOGGR Can’t Stand Under SB 4: Alameda County Judge Throws Out Environmental Suit
By Mike Mills on
Environmental groups will have to wait to challenge hydraulic fracturing activities in the state of California until the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) issues its permanent regulations in 2015. This is according to Alameda County Judge Evelio Grillo, who on January 17, 2014, granted a motion to dismiss a challenge brought by…
Governor Brown Outlines Budget Priorities for CalEPA and Natural Resources Agency
Governor Brown released a summary of his proposed 2014-2015 budget this week, including details on proposed environmental protection and natural resources spending. The Governor’s budget provides $3.6 billion in funding for the California Environmental Protection Agency, including $3.1 billion in State funds and $54 million from the General Fund. Proposed funding of CalEPA programs include:
- $850 million
…
Application for State Funds Not A “Project” Under CEQA
By Timothy Taylor on
In City of Irvine v. County of Orange (“City of Irvine”) (published and modified on November 22, 2013), the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the County of Orange’s (“County”) application for state funding for jail expansion was not a “project” requiring environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
In…
Governor Brown Signs SB 743 – The CEQA Reform That Wasn’t
By Kristen Castaños on
On September 27, 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 743, bringing to a close a legislative session full of surprises when it comes to CEQA reform. SB 743 paves the way for streamlined judicial review of the proposed new Sacramento Kings downtown arena and sets forth a few additional streamlining provisions under the California…
Potential Legal Challenges Likely to California’s New Fracking Law
By Mike Mills on
California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 4 on Friday, September 20, 2013, establishing a permitting system for fracking of oil and gas wells. (See September 23, 2013 post.) The state, through the Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”), will be developing regulations to implement SB 4’s requirements. Despite its recent…
Second District Court of Appeal finds Failure to Request a CEQA Hearing within 90 Days is Excusable Neglect
By Allison Smith on
The Second District Court of Appeal has issued a decision in Comunidad en Accion v. Los Angeles City Council (case no. B240554 (Sept. 20, 2013), finding that the petitioner’s failure to timely request a hearing under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) was excusable neglect. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling dismissing the petitioner’s suit on this basis.[1]
Comunidad en Accion challenged the City of Los Angeles’ approval of new and expanded solid waste facilities at the Bradley Landfill in Sun Valley, where the real party in interest, Waste Management, proposed building a new solid waste transfer station and expanded recycling and green waste processing facilities. Comunidad failed to comply with Public Resources Code section 21167.4 by filing a request for a hearing within 90 days of filing the lawsuit, however, and Waste Management filed a motion to dismiss on this basis shortly after the 90-day deadline ran.
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss Comunidad’s CEQA claims and denied its request for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, which permits relief from dismissal due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Comunidad’s attorney averred that he had inadvertently omitted the 90-day hearing request from his personal calendaring system and that this mistake was compounded when he was out of state for two weeks prior to the deadline due to family illness. The trial court distinguished case precedent that found a calendaring error warranted discretionary relief under section 473, concluding that calendar shortcomings in the age of electronic litigation calendars, was not excusable neglect.
Upon review, the Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Comunidad relief.
[1] In addition to the CEQA claims, Comunidad challenged the siting of the waste facilities under state antidiscrimination laws. On this issue, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the City.Continue Reading Second District Court of Appeal finds Failure to Request a CEQA Hearing within 90 Days is Excusable Neglect
Ninth Circuit Holds California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard is Constitutional on its Face
By Allison Smith on
This week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, ruling on the constitutionality of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s holdings in large part, in particular finding that the LCFS does not on its face violate the…