EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of California Rosnz~ W.

### BYRNE Supervising Deputy Attorney General MICHAELW. NEVILLE Deputy Attorney General State

### Bar No: 

### 96543

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 1

### 1000 San Francisco, CA 

### 94102-7004 Telephone: 

### (41 5) 703-5523 Fax: 

### (415)703-5480 E-mail: Michael.Neville@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for State Respondents I I. 

# IBy 

### Christa Beebout, Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF 

### THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

EL COMITE

### PARA EL BIENESTAR DE EARZIIMART, 

### an unincorporated association, COMMITTEE FOR A ' BETTER 

### ARVTN, a California non-profit corporation, ASSOCIATION OF IRRITATED RESIDENTS, 

### an . unincorporated association,COMMUNITY AND CHILDREN'S ADVOCATES AGAINST PESTICIDEPOISONING, a California non-profit corporation, Petitioners, I Case No. 34-2009-80000253-CU-WM-GDS fHWWBEl] JUDGMENT DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OFMANDATE Dept: 31 Judge: Honorable Michael 

### P. Kenny Action Filed: May 

### 20,2009

MARY-ANN WARNERDAM, in :her off~cial capacity as Director, California Department of Pesticide Regulation; DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE 

# 1 REGULATION, 

# 1 Respondents.

AIR COALITION TEAM, 

# I Intervenor. 

## I 

# I IudgmentDenyingPetitionFor WritOfMaidate (34-2009-80000253-CU-WM-GDS) 

# IBienestarDe Earlirnart, Committeefor a Better Arvin, Association of Irritated Residents, and I

Community and Children's Advocates Against PesticidePoisoning (collectively "petitioners") D 1 

# I 4 

# 11 filed their petition for writ ofmandate and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief 1 '-! ,,I The Court finds the fol1owing:that on May 20,2009, petitionersEl CornitePara El

("Petition") agaiit

### Mary-Ann Warmerdarn, 

### inher official capacity as Dbctorof the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, and against the California Department
. of

. pesticide

. Regulation (collectively "respondents"); that on August 5,2009,the court granted leave to interveneto the Air Coalition Team ("intervenor"); that subsequently respondents lodged the certifiedadministrativerecord in this action and theparties filed briefs on the merits; that the court issued itstentative opinionin favor ofrespondents and intervenor.onDecember 10,2009; 

# I l1 

# II .thaton December 11,2009, the court held a hearing onthe merits during.whichthe matter was

. . l2 

# II arguedby counsel for all parties and then submitted; that

. on

... December 11,2009,.thecourt issued

. .

l5

# A Minute OrderIRulilig on Submitted Matter (whichis attached as Attachment A and incorporated

, 13. 14

l6

# 11 herein) and the other orders and stipulations ofthe court, all issues 

### in this action havebeen fully a Minute OrderICourtRuling on SubmittedMatter ("Ruling on Submitted Matter") 

### in which the

' court affirmed its tentativeruling and denied the Petition; and that consistent with the court's

17 

# ( and finally resolved and adjudicated. 18

# 11 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED,ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: l9

# 11 1, The Petition is denied and petitionersshall take nothing by their Petition. 2o 

# 11 2. Judgmentis rendered in favor ofthe respondents and the intervenor, and against

- 21 

# 11 petitioners. 3. The respondents qe awardedjudgment for costs of suit in the 'amount of $ Ill Ill

JudgmentDenying PetitionFor Writ OfMandate (34-2009-80000253-CU7Wh4-GDS)

### ,intervenoris 4. 

### The- awarded

### judgment' for costs

### ofsuit 

### in the amount of
APPROVED AS TO FORM: 

### THE CENTER ON RACE, POVERTY &THE. 

### ENVIRONMENT



### Dated: 

### DEC 28 

### 2010

, 

### MICHAEL KENNY 

### TheHonorable'MichaelP. 

### Kenny Judge of

### the SuperiorCourt

. 

# -

3 -. -+hpaod] JudgmentDenying PetitionFor Writ OfMandate (34-2009-80000253-CU-WM-GDS)

# ATTACHMENT A*

# .--, a .~ERIOR COURT OF CALIFORK ,

" COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

. GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER Date: 1211112009 Time: 09:00:00 AM Dept: 31. Judicial Officer presiding: Michael P Kenny Clerk: Susan Lee ReporterIERM: 

### 8.Henrikson CSR# 

### 11373 Balliff1Court Attendant: Derek Greenwood i Case No: 34-2009-~OOOO~~~-~U-WM-ODS Case 

### hit. Date: 0512012009 CaseTitle, El Comite Para El Bienestar De Earlimkrt vs. 

### ~aiy-~nn Warmerdarn 

### in her offic[al


### . . capaci,tyas'Director Case Category: Civil 

## - Unlimited EVENT IDIDOCUMENTID: 1270755,3325056 EVENT

### NPE: ~etitldn for Writ of Prohibition

## - Writ of Mandate MOVING PARTY: Committee ForA Better Arvin, El Comite Para El Bienestar De Earlimart,

### Association Of Irritated Residents, Communi And Children's Advocates A ainst Pesticide Poisoning 

# Y 9 CAUSAL DOCUMENTIDATE F LED: /Petition for Writ of. andate For Preparatian 

### Of Record 

### O) Proceedings, 0512012009



### APPEARANCES

. .

. .. Alegria De La ~ruz and Brent Newell are"present for petitioners. Michael 

### W, Ne'llle, DeputyAttorney 'General is resent for respondents; 

# P Ann M. Grottvelt is present and Rissa A. Stuart 

### spresenttelephonlcallyfor Intervenor,

.

. ~ir'~oalltlon Team. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:, PETITION.FOR WRIT OF MANDATE TENTATIVE RULING

. ' I.

, . The following shall constitutethe Court's tentative ruling on the demurrer filed by the Real 

### Party in Interest, setfor hearing in Department 

### 31 on Friday, November

### 20, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.,The tentative . ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court unless a party wishing to 

### be heard so advises the clerk of thls' Department no later than'4:OO p.m. on thecourt day precedingthe hearing and further advises the clerk that such party has notifiedthe other slde of its intention to appear. Inthe event that a hearing is requested, oral argument shall be limitedto no more than 20 minutes per' side. Inthis maridate roceedlng underthe California ~nvironm~ntal hual1ty Act ("CEQA"), 'petitioners 

# B ~hallenge the a equacy of respondents1 revlew of an April 2009 amendment to a regulation (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, 

### 3 6452.2.) requiring respondent Dlrectorto establish llmlts for volatile or anic compound em~ssions "VOC") fromfumigant pesticidesduringthe period of May 

### 1to October 3 in certain areas of 

# t B California. he amendment increasedthe benchmarksfor total VOC emissions from fumlgant and nonfumigant pesticides usedto trigger the,Director's establishment of the fumigant emlssion limits and delayed any establishment of the limits until 2011. Petitioners contend that respondents failed to comply with CEQA requirements for the analysis of the sigr~ificant environmental Impacts of the amendment, the Date: 1211112009 / MINUTE ORDER Page: 1 Dept: 31 Calendar No.:identiflcatlonof reasonable alternativesto the amendment and feasible mitigation measures that would avoid or minimize the si nifi.cant Im acts, a statement of overriding considerationssupported by 

# a substantial evidence in t e adminls 

# P

rative record, and meaningful responses to public comments on the amendment.[l] To protect public health and welfare, the federal CleanAir Act ("CAN) requires the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency "US EPA")to establish national ambient air quality ("NAAQ") standardsfor certain air 

# I pollutants and requ res each state to submit for US EPA approval a State Implementation Plan ("SIPw) to achieve and maintain each 

### NAAQ standard in areas of the state where the standard has not been met or attalned (non-attainmentareas or "NAAs"). (42 U.S.C. 

## 5 7409,7410, 7502.) Pursuant to this CAA 

# d requirement; the California Air Quality Resources Boar ("CARB") prepared a 

### SIP to achieve and maintainthe 

### NAAQ standard for ozone in five NAAs, including San Joaquin Valley and Ventura, and the 

### US EPA approved this SIP in 1997. (62 Fed. Reg. 1150 (January8, 1997).) The approved California SIP for ozone set forth,measuresto attain the 

### NAAQ ozone standard in N'AAs by 

### controlling and reducing emissions of ozone precursors, nitrogen oxides ("NOx") and reactive organic gases ("ROGn) from multiple sources, including mobile sources, consumer products and pesticides. A
. section of the SIP prepared and revised by respondent Department of Pesticide.Regulation ("Departmentw) set 

### a goal of reducing VOC (i.e., ROG) emissions from agricultural and 'commercial structural pesticide use b .20 percent of a 1990 baselme 

### emissions inventory inthe sc eduled attainment years for four

# k AAs, including a reduction of 2.4 tons per day ("tpd") of 

### RO 

# 6 in 2005 for the Ventura 

### NAA. (8 AR 2221-2231;[2] 62 Fed. Reg., 

### supra, at 1170. This pesticides section of the SIP alga set a goal of reducing pesticide VOC emlsslons by 12 percent of 

# 1 he 1990 baseline in the scheduled attainment year of 1999 for the San Joaqutn Valley NAA. 

### (Ibid.)These reductions would inltlally be achleved by changes in pest management practices, includin the Use of lower 

### VOC-containing pesticide products and pesticide 

### application methods and tec

# 1 nologies producing lower VOC emissions: (Ibid.) 

### A decision as to whether additional regulatory measures were n.ecessar-yto achieve the 20 percent reduction goal was to be made by the Department in 1997. 

### (/bid.) On the basis of pesticld6 VOC emisslbns data collected by 1997, the department determinedthkt no additional regulatory measures were necessaryto meet the 20 percent reduction goal by 2905 and took no steps to adopt any additional regulato measures. (See 

### El Comite para elBlenestar 

### de Earlirnart 

### v? Warmerdam (2008) 539 F.3d 1062, 1068T~his determinationwas effectively rejected in litigation

. . .brought.in the 

### U.S. District Court, which concluded that the Depaitpent .hadfailed to comply with its SIP commitments to adopt regulations. (id. .at p. 1066. See 5 

### AR 2087-2132 (orders in Comite para el Bienestarde Earlirnart

### v. Helliker (E.D.Cal. 2006).) On the basis of this conclusi6n, the US.i3istci.d Court ordered the Departmentto adopt regulations by 2008 .toachieve a reduction .in pesticideVOC emissions of 20'percent, using a 1991em'lssions inventory as a suirogate for the 1990 baseline from .whichto measure the 20 percent reduction. (Ibid.)

. . While appealing the order of the U.S. District Court, the Department undertook to adopt the regulations ordered by the court in a rulemaking proceeding pursuantto the CaliforniaAdministrative Procedure Act 

### ("APA"),Government Code section 11 370 et seq. The regulations, which were adopted and became effective on January 25, 2008, established restrictions on the use of fumigant pesticide products and application methods; required respondent Directorto set limits on fumigant VOC emissions in each NAA from May 1to October 31 consistent with the 20 percent reduction from 1991 levels ordered by the 

### U.S. District Court and expressed as benchmarks In the re ulations; and instituted a process for the allocation

### of fumigant emissions within the establlshe 

# 9 limits among parties permitted to apply fwmigarits in the NAAs. (1AR 484-516, 521-523.) To ensure that the court-ordered 20-percent reduction goals or benchmarkswere not exceeded, the fumigant emission limitswere set at 80 percent of the benchmarks. (Ibid.) In a subsequent rule-makingproceeding, the Department amended the re ulations, effective September 3, 2008, to allow a phase-in of the fumigant VOC emission reductionsfor t 

# \ e Ventura NAA between 2008 and 2012. (6 AR 3019,3076-3086, 3102-3134.) This amendment reflected a revision of the ' Date: 1211 112009 MINUTE ORDER Page: 2 Dept: 31

, Calendar No.:'- 

### -.
I .- , r ./-\ Case Title: El Comite Para El .snestar De .Eartimart Case No:, 1009-80000253-CU-WM-GDS vs. Mary-Ann Warmerdam in her official capacity as pestlclde section ~.f the ozone SIP approved by the US EPA on July 18, 2008. (Ibid.).The amendment was undertaken in light of data indicating that a reduction of 46 percent from current fumigant enilssion levels in Ventura would be necessary in 2008 to comply with the regulatory benchmark and emission limits and that such a reduction would lead to a decrease infumigated acreage, declines In agricultural yields, and the converslon of a ricultural land to other uses. (Ibid.) To mitigate the serious economic I? ~mpacts of lost agricultural pro uction and the environmental impacts of lost agricultural lands, the amendment phased in the 20 percent reduction of 1991 levels of VOC emissions by 2012. ((lbid.) The US 

### EPA approval of the SIP revision reflected inthe amendment found that the temporary increase in pesticide VOC emissions resulting from the phase-in would not interfere with reasonatjlefurther progresg in attainingthe NAAQ standardfor ozone by the attainment deadline. (6 AR 3114-3115. See 73 Fed. Reg. 41280 (July 18. ?008).), I

, While the regulatoryamendment'to phase in emission reductions 

### in the VenturaNAA wab pending, in '

August 2008, the 

### U.S.Court of A pealsfor the Ninth Circuit reversedthe 

### U.S. Dlstrict Court orders for'

. 

# E emission reduction regulations. 

### ( Comife para elBienestarde Earlimart

### v. Warmerdam (2008) 539 F.3d 1062.) Shortly thereafter the Department began rulemaking proceedings to adopt an amendment, effective April 20, 2009, which etitioners challenge herein. Specifically, the Department amended
. 

# e section 6452.2 in title 3 of the alifomia Code of Regulations by changing the benchmarks for pesticide
. VOC emissions from those ordered by.the U.S. District Court to those inthe pesticide section'.ofthe

. California SIP for ozone approved by the US EPA: the amended 'benchmarksfor four of the NAAs, ' including.Ventura, reflected 20 percent reductions in pesticideVOC emissions from ,1990 rather than ' ' 1991 levels, and the amended benchmarkfor the San Joaquin Valley NAA reflected a 12 percent reduction in pesticide'VOC emissions from,1990 levels. 

### (7 AR 3221, 3218. See 62 Fed. Re 

### ., supraleat I1 70.) In addltlon, the amendment of section 6452:2 delayed until 201

### I the Director's estab 

# 1. ishment of fumigant VOC emlssion'limlts which cap and .allocateemissions to growers through a errnit system 

# 5 when overall emissions 

### in an NAA,exceed80 percent of the benchmarkfor the.NAA. 

### ( AR 3218,3222.)

The amendment preserved the benchmark phase-in rocess prevlously adopted for the Ventura NAA 

# R and approved as a 

### .revision of the SIP by the US 

### EP 

# . (Ibid.) . . . All of the afore-mentioned regulatory roceedings are part of the Depadment's 

### pesticide regulatory program which has been cert~fied un

# 8 er Public Resources Code sectlon 21080.5 as functionally equivalent to CEQA. (Food 81 Ag. Code 

### 3 11401 et seq.; CEQA Guideline 15251.(i 

# . See Californian

### for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Pesticide Regulation 2006) 136 Gal-App. th 1049, 1059.)

, 

# I 

# a Pursuant to this certification, the Department's pesticide regu atory activities are exempt from, the procedural requirements of.CEQAfor the preparation of negative declarations and environmental impad ' reports, .ahd the Department is requiredto prepare only the documents specified in its own regulations ' which conforrri to CEQA's policy goals and substantive standards. (CEQA Guidelines 15250, 15252.) As : set forth in Department's regulations, it Is requlred to prepare a public report that summarizes any proposed regulation, amendment to a regulation, or repeal of a regulation; that states any significant . adverse environmental impact that can'reasonably be ex ected'tooccuifrom implementationof.the proposal and any reasonable mitigation measures availa le to minimize the signilicant impact; and that states .and discusses reasonable alternativesto.reduce any significant impact. (Cal..Code Regs., tit. 3, 

## 5 61 10:) The Department is also required evaluatedhe adequacy of the regulatory proposal in achieving the purposes of the pesticide regulatory program set forth in Food and Agriculture Code section 11501. (Ibid.) Among those statutory purposes is the safe and efficient use of pesticides essential for the productlon of food and the protectionof the publlc health and safety (Food & Ag. Code.§11501, subd. (a)) and the protection of the environmentfrom environmentally harmful pesticides by prohibiting, regulating and ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides. (Food & Ag. Code 

## 5 11501, subd. (b). See Cal'. Code Regs., tit. 3, 

### 3 6100, subds. (a)(2),(a)(4).) Inamending section 6482.2 b revisingthe pesticideVOC emissionsbenchmarks and delaying the establishment of emisslon lim 

# Y ts in all NAAs exceptVentura until 2011, the Department prepared and
. ' Issued. a publlc report evaluating the amendment's environmental impacts In accordancew~th its pesticide regulatory programcertification (Cal. Code Regs,, tit. 3, ,§§ 6100, 6110) and in conjunction with its preparation and issuance of Initial and final statements of reasons for the amendment pursuant to Date: 1211112009

. MINUTEORDER

.. page: 3 Dept: 31 Calendar No.':.*--\ 

# / Case Title: El Corniie 

### Pa; E~raestar De ~arlirnart case No: : '009-80dO0253-CU-WM.ODS 

# 1 vs. Mary-Ann Warmerdam in her official capacity as APA rulemaking requirements. (See 7.AR 3220ff. 3468ff.) Contrary to the contentions of petitioners, the Department ade uately complied with the environmental requirementsfor a .publicreport and the CEQA 

# 3 substantive stan ards that the public report is designed to carry out. 

### -Evaluation of environmenta/.impacts

Perhaps most important; the report indicatedthat heincreasesin pesticide VOC emissions allowed by. the amended benchmarks .would have little or no.impact on the state's efforts or progress in

. attaining the national ambient air quality ozone.standardpursuantto the SIP. (7 

### AR 3236, 3468-3469, 3477, 3478. Thus, the fumigant pesticide VOC emissions allowed by'the amended benchmarks could not reasona 

# bly be expectedto preclude attainmentof-.theair quality ozone standards In either the San Joaquin Valley or Ventura 

### NAA. '



### -Mitigation measures 

## - The public report adequately analyzed the significance of an enylronmentai impacts resultingfrom the amendment Inthe San Joaquin Valley and Ventura NAAs, the two areas on which petitioners' contentionsfncus. With respect to the Ventura NAA, the public report reco nized that the amendment ' . 

# a would adopt a pesticideV.OC emissions benchmark 0,4 tpd less stringent t 

### an the benchmark inthe existing regulation, thus allowing up to 0.4 tpd more VOC emlssionsfrom fumigant pesticidesthan would have been allowed under:the'existing regulation. (7 

### AR 3226.) The publlc report reasonably concluded that the potentialcontribution of the additional'0.4tpd to the'fonnationof ozone would be minor because .of tbpreference shown by growers in the area for 

### the fumigant methyl bromide which has a low reactive nature. 

### (/bid.; 3 AR ,1363; 6 

### AR 3084) The report also reas.onably concluded that the additional 0.4 tpd areawide VOC emissions averaged over the six month period from Mayto October could not be expected to increasethe .risksof toxic exposure to pesticides',which are a function of airamcentration at a particular. lace .and time and which are mitigated by other programs of thedepartment 

## . (7 

### AR 3224, 3227, 

### 3483.r With respect fo thb.San Joaquln Valley 

### NAA, the publicreport recognizedthat the amendmentwould . make the area's pesticideVOC emissions benchmark2.1 tpd lessstrin ent than the benchmark inthe 

# B existing regulation and delay any Implementationof fumigant emission irnits until 201 

### I, thus allowlng up -to'2.1tpd more VOC emissions fromfumi ant pesticidesthan would have been allowed underthe 

# B

The public report explalnedthat the purpose of the amendmentwas to meet the Department's commitments under the 1994 SIP to reduce pesticideVOC emissions without placing an unreasonable or disproportionate burden on fumigant pesticide users. (7 

### AR 3225.) To achieve this purpose, the public report identified pesticide VOC emission 

## reduction measuresfor the Ventura NAA and the San Joaquin Valley NAA. existing regulatlons. The public report exp ained that.pesticide.VOC emissions.durlng 2007 were below the benchmark pro osed bythe amendment and that .the emissionswere expected to continue 

# I: decreasing below 

### t e proposed benchmark because,of the regulationsthat went Into effect in January

. 2008, 

### restricting fumigant applications inthe San Joaquln Valley 

### NAA to low. emitting methods and 

### technologies. (7 AR 3229, '3471-3472, 3501

### .) PesticideVOC emissions were also expectedto continue decreasin below the proposed benchmark because VOC emissions from nonfumigant pesticides, .which acwunte 

# ffor two-thirds of the.total pesticideVDC 

### emissions in the San Joaquln Valley NAAwould decline with the introductionof nonfilmigant .pesticide products with lowerVOC.emittlng potentials. (7 AR 3223, 3228,3501 

### .)

Regulatory rneasuresto control and reduce pesticideVOC emissions in the Vkntura NAA 

### in accoidance

. with the Department'scommitments under the 1994 SIP were adopted effective September 2008'and, as indicated in the public report, were retainedbythe amendnient. (7 AR 3224.) These measures includedthe establrshmentof emission limits and alloeations aniong pesticide users to.phase in attainment of the benchmark consistent with the 1994 SIP by 101 2 without giving.rlseto losses in agricultural yields and lands, (7AR 3224, 3226:)

. . Date: 1211112009 ' . WIINUTE ORDER . . Page: 4 ~eptf 31

, . Calendar No;:'\ L

# - Case Title: 

### El ~omite Para E; 

### ,.hestar De 

### ~arllrnai Case No: - ~009-80000253-~~-~~-~~~ vs. 

### Mary-Ann Warmerdam in 

### her official capacity as ' 

### Measures identified inthe public report to reduce'pesticideVOC emissions 

### In the San J.oaquin Valle 

### NAA b 12,percent of 1990 levels, consistent with the Departments 1994 SIP commltment,'include the restrict 

# r

on of fumigant pesticide users to low VOC-emitting fumlgant products and low-emission , 

# d application methods and technology as well as the redudron of tionfumigant pesticideVOC ernlssions, whichcomprise two-thirds of the pesticide.VOCemissions Inthe San Joaquin Valley 

### NAA, through the required use 

### 07 low-emitting nonfurnigant products. 

### (7 AR 3231-3232,3473-3474.) These control .measures.are enforceable pursuant to the re ulations adopted in January 2008 or.wlll be enforceable 

# 9 upon the adoption of further regulations. 

### (Ibi .) The establ~shment of em~ssipn limits.at 80 percent of the amended benchmarksto ensure that pesticide VOC emisslons do not exceed the'benchmarkswas reasonabl delayed untll 2011 to avoid prematurely limiting and allocatingVOC emisslons below the 

# Z benchmar s, thereby unnecessarllydisru tin fumigant applications and incurring substantial state and local costs to implement the 

### allocations.

# 6 A! 3222-3223, 3228, 3242, 3486.)
The public report stated that there were no other mitigation measuresor alternatives that would serve the purposes of the amendment while reducirlg any potential adverse environmental impact. (7 

### AR .3229.) This statement is legally and factually correct.

Legally, CEQA 

### does not requireconsideration 

### of an alternative to a.pmposed project, such as the. proposed regulatory amendment of section 6452.2, ifthe alternative does not- meet basic project objectives, whetheror not the alternative may avoid or minimlze a 

### significant environmental impact of the pro osed project. (In 

### re Bay-Delia 

### etc. (2008) 43 .Cal.$th 1143, 

### I 166, referencipg 

### CEQA Guideline 151 26.&c).) Factually,the amendment of section 6452.2 

### was designed to serve the purposes of the Department's pesticide regulatory programwhile maintaining wnslstency with the Department's commitments to reduce pesbclde VOC emisslons underthe 1994 SIP for the attainment of the federal air quality standard for ozone. (See Cal. 

### Code Regs., tit. 3, 

## 55 6100,6110, subd, b (I), referencing Food & 

### Ag. Code § 11 501

### .) In particular, while tak~nsteps to reduce 

### pesticide V ernisslons' ursuant to SIP 

# 9 

# A2 P commitments,the amendment a so took steps to promote the safe and eMc ent use of pesticides for the productionof a ricultural commodities. (Food & Ag. 11501, s~bd. (a); Cal. Code Regs., tft. 3, 

## 5 6100, subd. (ab(Z),)~fe amendment minimized the dsks of losses in agriculturai yields and agricultural lands created y the more stringent benchmarks ordered by the U.S. 

### District Court and undertook to relieve the disproportionateand potentially counterprodyctive responsibility placed onfumigant pesticides for overall pesticide VOC emission reductions. (5 

### AR 2461-2463; 

### 7 AR 3226, 3228, 3479-3480.) Petitioners do not identify any alternatives that similarly maintain consistencywith the Department's commitments to reduce pesticide VOC emissions under the 1994 SIP 

### while minimizing potential losses in agricultural

ields and lands or otherwise servingthe purposes of the Department's pesticide regulatory program rdentified in Food and Agriculture Code section 1 1501. 

### Contrary to etitioners' c~ntentlon, the pesticide VOC emission berichmarks 

### in the exlstin regulation 

# J' adopted in anuary 2008 pursuantto orders of the U.S. 

### District Coyrt is adequately consi

# 8 ered in the public report as the "no-project alternative1,pursuantto CEQA Guideline 15126.6(e (3 (A 

# .The ~ncdnslstency of the court-ordered benchmarks in the existing regulationwith the 1 

# A2

9 

### S

# 1 P reduction 

### commitments and the mateylaldifferences betweenthe existing regulation andthe amendment are discussed In detail inthe public report and responsesto public comments. 

### (7 AR 3220, 3226, 3228, 3476-33481

### .) 

### -Statement of ove,ridingconsiderations

, 

## - Substantial evidence inthe rulemaking record reasonably supports the conclusion in the publlc report

that any potential adverse environmental impact by the amendment on the formajion of ozone in the Ventura and San Joaquin Valley NAAs is 

### outweighed'by other economic and environmental

. . 

### ~&e: 

### I UI 112009 

### MINUTE ORDER 

### Page: 5. Dept: 31 

### Calendar No.:I -+'

# --, ry- . \ .Chse Title: El Comite Para E( dnestar 

### De Earlimart case No:! 

# : .009-80000253~~~~-~~~ vs. 

### MaryAnn Warmerdarn in 

### her official capacity as considerations. As previously discussed, the additional .04tpd of esticlde 

### VOC emissions allowed 

### In the Ventura NAA by the qmended benchmark would not apprecia ly contributeto ozone formation but would enable the farming of hundreds of acres 'of historically fumigated acres on which high value crops are grown. 

### (3AR 1389; 

### 5 AR 2425-2426; 7 AP 3226. The additional2.3 t d of pesticldeVOC emlsslons 

# d 

# 8 allowed inthe San Joaquln Valley NAA by tha amen ed benct~mark woul not prevent the state from attaining the federal air quality standard for ozone under the SIP, while the amendment would facilitate reductions In nonfumi ant emlsslons proportionateto their two-thirds contribution to overall pesticide 

# X VOC emissions. 

### (7

### A 3228, 3469, 3476, 3480.)
Petitioners object to the Department's system of respondingto the public comments on the amendment 

### by summarizingthe .comments in,the ubiic report ratherthan includingthe original comment letters 

# R whlch were availableto the public at t e Department's head uarters in.Sacramento.Petitionerscontend that this system of respondingto public comments prevente 

# 9 members of the public from meaningfully partlcipating inthe CEQA process. Petitioners do not identify any provision of CECA which requiresthe Departmentto provide copies of public comment letterswith environmental review documents instead of summarizing the public comments inthe.do~uments. Nor does this system 

### of respondingto public.

. comm,ents

.appear
. to-preventmeaningful public participation inthe environmental review process.

. . For the fokgoing reasons, the petition is denied. Counselfor respondents is directedto prepare a proposed Judgment consistent with this ruling, serve it on counselfor petitioners and intervenors, and then submtt itto this.courtpursuantto rule 3,1312 of the California Rules of Court.

, ,
. .
111 Respondents' requestfor an extenslon of tlme to file their opposition brlef on November 19 instead.ofNovember:1'3,2009, IS granted. There is no showing that respondents' minor delay In serving and filing their opposition bdef in any way prejudiked petitioners In replylng to the opposition brief. 

### [2] Cftations to the adrninistratlve record beginwith the volume number, are followed by "ARp and end with the page 

## .

. .. number(s)i

. .

. . 

# 1 COURT RULING.

. . The matter is argued and 

### submitted.

. The Courttakes matte; under submission. COURT RULINGON SUBMITTED 

### MATTER '
. . ~h& court

### AFFIRMS the tentative rullng. ' . Certiflcate of Service by Mailing is attached. . I, the Clerk of the Superior Court of Califomla, County of Sacramento, 

### deqi that 

### Iam not a arty to thls 

# 2' 2 cause, and on the date showri below 

### Iserved the foregoing MINUTE ORD 

### R DATED DEC 

### MBER 1.4, 2009 b deposltingtrue copies thereof, enclosed in separate, sealed envelopes with the postagefully inthe United States Mall at Sacramento, California., each which envelopes was addressed respectively to the persons and addresses show below:

. . ALEGRIA DE LA.CWZ, ESQ.. 

### BRENT NEWELL, LEGAL DIRECTOR 

### .47Kearny Street,, Suite 804

. -~ - Date: 12/11/2009 . . MINUTE 

### ORDER
. Page: 6 Dept: 31

. Calendar 

### No;:. 1' n __,,- 

# -

. 

## -. Case Title: 

### El Comite 

### Para 

### El
,

### :hestar De Earlimart 

### Case No? 

### b09-80000253~~-~~-~~~ vs. Mary-Ann 

### Warmerdam 

### in her official eapacity 

### as -. ' 

### San Francisco, CA 

### 94108 

### MICHAEL W. 

### NEVILLE DEPUTYATTORNEY GENERAL

. , . 

### Department of Justice

. . 

### 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

. .. 

### San Francisco,. CA 

### 941 02-7004

. . 

### ANN M. GROTNEIT, ESQ: 

### RlSSA A. STUART, 

### ESQ. KAHN, SOARES & CONWAY, LLP 141 

### 5 L Street, Suite 400
. . 

### Sacramento, CA 95814

. . 

### I, the undersigned Deputy Clerk, 

### declare under penalty of 

### perjury that 

### the foregoing 

### ig

### true and correct Dated: Deceniber 15,2009 SUPERIOR COURT 

### OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACMMENTO 

### Is1 S. Lee 

## . By S. Lee, Deputy Clerk

. . .

, 

### Date: 1211

### 1/2009

. . MINUTE 

### ORDER Page: 

### 7

Dept: 31 .I 

### Calendar No.:DECLARATION OF SERVICE

### BY U.S. MAIL CaseName: El Comite Para, et al. 

### v. Mary-Ann Warmerdam, et al. 

### NO.: 34-2009-80000253-CU-WM-GDS



### I am employed in the Office ofthe Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the California StateBar, at whichmember's direction this service ismade. 

### I 

### am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter. 

### I am familiar with the business practice at the Office ofthe Attorney General for collection andprocessing of correspondencefor mailing with the United States Postal Service. 

### In accordancewith that practice, correspondesceplaced in the internal mail collection system at the Office oftheAttorney General is deposited with the United States

.. Postal Servicethat same day in the ordinary course ofbusiness. On December 22,2010, 

### I served the attached [PROPOSED]

### JUDGMENTDENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATEby placing 'atrue copythereof enclosed in a sealed

. envelope with postage thereon fullyprepaid, in the internalmail~collection system at the Office of the Attorney General at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000,SanFrancisco, CA 94102- 7004, addressed 

### as follows: Alegria De L;a Cruz, Esq.

. . Brent 

### J. Newell, Esq. Center on Race, Poverty & Environment 47 Kearny Street, Suite 804 SanFrancisco, CA 94108 

### Ann M. Grottveit,Esq. RissaA. Stuart, Esq. Kahn, Soares & Conway, LLP

## - Hanford 2 1 

### 9 North Douty Street Hanford, CA 93232 

### I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that this declarationwas executed on December22,2010, at SanFrancisco, California.

Pattie 

### Manning Declarant Signature