Court Opinion

ID: 9352069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-04 20:01:47.180125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:51.651049
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/4/23 Cal. Water Impact Network v. City of San Buenaventura CA2/6
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                         DIVISION SIX

CALIFORNIA WATER                                               2d Civ. No. B315362
IMPACT NETWORK,                                              (Super. Ct. No. 56-2019-
                                                             00532905-CU-WM-VTA)
     Plaintiff and Appellant,                                   (Ventura County)

v.

CITY OF SAN
BUENAVENTURA,

     Defendant and Respondent.

       The City of San Buenaventura (City) has a contractual
right to water from the State Water Project (SWP). But the City
has never been able to use the SWP water due to lack of
infrastructure necessary to deliver the water to the City. As a
result, the City has to sell its allocation to other SWP contractors
or to the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR)
“turnback” program. The City wants to construct the
infrastructure necessary to use the water. Pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code,
§ 21000 et seq.1) (CEQA), the City prepared an environmental
impact report (EIR) for the project. The California Water Impact
Network (CWIN), an environmental organization, challenged the
adequacy of the EIR. The trial court denied CWIN’s petition for a
writ of administrative mandate. We affirm.
                               FACTS
                             Background
       In 1963 Ventura County contracted with the CDWR for the
delivery of up to 20,000 acre feet per year of SWP water. The
Casitas Municipal Water District (Casitas) was made
administrator of the contract. In 1971 the City contracted with
Casitas for up to 10,000 acre feet per year. The United Water
Conservation District (United) contracted with Casitas for up to
5,000 acre feet per year. Casitas retained the remaining 5,000
acre feet per year.
                              The project
       The City’s project, the State Water Interconnection Project
(SWI Project), proposes to import SWP water through the
construction of a pipeline approximately seven miles long. The
pipeline would also allow United and Casitas to receive SWP
water.
       The local water sources currently available to the City are
diminishing. The City conceives of the SWP water that will be
provided by the SWI Project as “replacement” for the diminishing
local resources; that is, the City does not view the SWI Project as
increasing the total amount of water available beyond that which
has been traditionally available from local sources. The EIR for

      1All further references are to the Public Resources Code
unless otherwise indicated.

                                2
the project concludes that as mitigated the SWI Project will have
no significant environmental impacts.
                            Parallel project
        The City also has the Ventura Water Supply Projects
(Water Supply Projects). The purpose of the Water Supply
Projects is to develop a “supplemental” supply of water from local
resources such as wastewater and groundwater treatment. The
supplemental supply is intended to increase the total amount of
potable water for the City, as opposed to the SWI Project’s
replacement supply which is intended to replace water from
diminishing current local resources. The SWI Project and the
Water Supply Projects have separate EIR’s.
                            DISCUSSION
                                   I.
                          Standard of review
        An EIR is presumed valid, and the petitioner has the
burden to prove otherwise. (California Native Plant Society v.
City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 986-987.) We
review challenges brought under CEQA for an abuse of
discretion. (§ 21168.5.) A lead agency abuses its discretion if: (1)
it fails to proceed in a manner required by law, or (2) its decisions
are not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole
record. (§ 21168.5; Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6
Cal.5th 502, 512.)
        The omission of required information from an EIR
constitutes a failure to proceed in a manner required by law
where it precludes informed decision making by the agency or
informed participation by the public. (California Native Plant
Society v. City of Santa Cruz, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at p. 987.)
Our review of such procedural error is de novo. (Ibid.) Questions

                                  3
concerning the amount or type of information, the scope of the
analysis or the choice of methodology in an EIR are factual
questions reviewed under the deferential substantial evidence
standard. (Id. at pp. 986-987.) Under the substantial evidence
standard, the agency is the finder of fact, and we must indulge in
all reasonable inferences and resolve all conflicts in the evidence
in favor of the agency’s decision. (Id. at p. 985)
                                  II.
              Essential analysis not excluded from EIR
       CWIN contends the EIR excluded the analysis discrediting
the SWI Project’s reliability.
                        (a) Project reliability
       CWIN argues the City excluded from its EIR for the SWI
Project a separate environmental review of the Water Supply
Projects. Water Supply Projects is viewed as a supplemental
supply of water, whereas the SWI Project is viewed as a
replacement for a diminishing supply of water from current
sources.
       The EIR for the Water Supply Projects discusses the SWI
Project in part as follows:
       “[SWP]. . . would be subject to the SWP water allocation,
updated each year depending on the hydrology in the state.
Some years the full entitlement may be available, while other
years less water would be available. The [CDWR] indicates that,
over the long term, an average of approximately 60 percent of
water entitlements may be available to the State Water
Contractors. However, during certain parts of the year but not
others, making it an unreliable source. The City of Ventura does
not have storage opportunities to store water in aboveground or
underground reservoirs when it is available. As a result, the

                                 4
[SWI Project] is being pursued in parallel with the [Water Supply
Projects] to augment water supplies when available, but the
interconnection is not considered a reliable, consistent water
supply.”
       But the EIR for the SWI Project discloses that the amount
of SWP water available each year varies depending on the
amount of precipitation, water in storage and regulatory
restrictions; that the average annual delivery of SWP water is
estimated at 62 percent of contracted entitlement; and that in a
very dry year there may be no SWP delivery. That information is
sufficient to inform the City and members of the public about the
reliability of SWP water. It is not necessary for the SWI Project’s
EIR to explicitly state that the SWP is not considered a reliable
supply of water.
       CWIN argues the EIR does not show the SWI Project would
reliably meet the SWI Project objectives. The water may not be
available even in emergencies. But the overall policy objective is
to provide some water to the City. The EIR fully discloses the
extent of the SWP’s reliability. It will deliver at least some water
in most years. Whether that is reliable enough to meet the City’s
project objectives is a question for the city council. (Citizens of
Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564
[“We may not . . . substitute our judgment for that of the people
and their local representatives”].) CWIN cites no authority
requiring a water source to be 100 percent reliable. Few, if any,
water sources would qualify.
                         (b) Piecemeal review
       CWIN contends the City violated CEQA’s prohibition on
dividing a single project into multiple projects for the purpose of
review. (Citing Boyung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975)

                                 5
13 Cal.3d 263, 283-284 [CEQA prohibits environmental
considerations from being “submerged by chopping a large project
into many little ones – each with a minimal potential impact on
the environment – which cumulatively may have disastrous
consequences”].) CWIN argues the SWI Project and the Water
Supply Projects are simply two parts of the same project and
should not have been the subject of separate EIR’s.
      It is true that both projects concern the City’s water supply.
But each project involves a different source of water, different
infrastructure, and neither project is dependent on the
completion of the other. Different projects may properly undergo
separate environmental review when the projects can be
implemented independently. (McCann v. City of San Diego
(2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 51, 85.) That is the case here.
              (c) Supplemental and replacement water
      CWIN argues the City cannot salvage the inadequacy of the
EIR by making a distinction between “supplemental water,” such
as the Water Supply Projects, and “replacement water,” as the
City labels the SWI Project.
      The argument is based on the theory that the Water Supply
Projects and the SWI Project are parts of the same project.
CWIN claims that the City cannot justify a separate EIR for each
project by labeling one project “supplemental water” and the
other “replacement water.”
      But that is not what justifies separate EIR’s. As we
explained above, separate EIR’s are justified because each project
can be implemented independently. (McCann v. City of San
Diego, supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 85.)

                                 6
                         (d) Project objectives
      CWIN contends the SWI Project’s stated objectives make
dependence on SWP water a fait accompli.
      But CEQA does not restrict an agency’s discretion to
identify and pursue a particular project designed to meet a
particular set of objectives. (San Diego Citizenry Group v. County
of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1, 14.) Thus, the City’s
stated objectives are valid even if it means dependence on the
SWP is a fait accompli. The City decides what project and
objectives it wants to pursue.
      The SWI Project’s objectives are stated in the EIR as
follows:
      “[1] Provide a near-term water supply source for the City to
enhance supply reliability;
      “[2] Improve City water quality;
      “[3] Provide a backup supply for the City’s other potential,
long-term water supply options;
      “[4] Allow the City, Casitas and United to receive their
SWP entitlements; and
      “[5] Enable the City to deliver water to Calleguas during an
imported water supply outage.”
      CWIN takes issue with the fourth objective, “Allow the
City, Casitas and United to receive their SWP entitlements.”
CWIN argues the objective does not “logically follow from the
central ones relating to water supply and quality . . . .”
CWIN cites no authority requiring the objectives to logically
follow. Receiving water from the SWP is not inconsistent with
water supply and improved quality.
      The only authority CWIN cites are cases relating to the
adequacy of the project description. The cases hold that an

                                7
accurate, stable, and finite project description is required for a
legally sufficient EIR. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles
(1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 199.) Thus, an EIR may not include
“incessant shifts among different project descriptions.” (Id. at p.
197.) The project description here contains no such defect. It is
sufficiently definite and certain. Moreover, it is unclear how such
authority in any way supports CWIN’s argument relating to one
objective not logically following from other objectives.
       In what appears to be a continuing diversion from CWIN’s
argument about an objective not logically following from other
objectives, CWIN cites City of Santee v. County of San Diego
(1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438 (City of Santee). There a city
objected to a county’s EIR for the “temporary expansion” of the
county’s jail facility. (Id. at p. 1440.) In concluding that the EIR
did not provide an accurate, stable, and finite project description,
the court stated: “Not only does a reading of the record support a
conclusion that some future action on the temporary project was
contemplated, it also reflects the EIR here could be considered
one small part of the larger project to ease jail crowding in the
entire county.” (Id. at p. 1454.)
       CWIN argues the words “supplemental” and “replacement,”
as used in the SWI Project EIR, are as ambiguous as the word
“temporary,” used in City of Santee. But the problem in City of
Santee is not that “temporary” is ambiguous. In fact, the county’s
project had a specific termination date. The problem is that the
county contemplated future action that was not disclosed in the
EIR. That is not the case here.
                          (e) Local alternatives
       CWIN argues the EIR does not consider project
alternatives that include exploring local water supply.

                                 8
       But the SWI Project and its objectives are to bring SWP
water to the City. An EIR need not consider alternatives that
cannot achieve the basic goal of the project. (San Diego Citizenry
Group v. County of San Diego, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 14.)
Local water supply cannot meet the basic goal of bringing SWP
water to the City.
              (f) Unreliability effect on project impacts
       CWIN argues the EIR failed to analyze how the SWP’s
unreliability would exacerbate the SWI Project’s impacts.
       The only consequence CWIN mentions is the problem of
finding a different backup supply when the SWP supply
predictably fails. The problem posed by CWIN assumes that if
the SWP water source fails, local sources of water will be
insufficient. The SWI Project does not exacerbate the problem.
Whether the SWP source of water fails or never existed, the
result would be the same. A backup source would be necessary.
The problem would exist whether or not the SWI Project is ever
carried out. In fact, the SWI Project lessens the probability of a
problem. By providing a source of water in addition to and
independent of local sources, the SWI Project makes the need for
a different backup supply less likely.
                                   III.
                         No project alternative
       CWIN contends the EIR’s no project alternative evaded the
foreseeable need to reduce reliance on the Sacramento River
Delta (Delta) and to protect public trust resources.
       A no project alternative in the EIR is required to “discuss
the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is
published . . . as well as what would be reasonably expected to
occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved,

                                9
based on current plans and consistent with available
infrastructure and community services.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14,
§ 15126.6 (e)(2).)
       The no project alternative section of the EIR provides in
part: “Without the proposed project, the SWP [a]llocations for the
City of Ventura and Casitas would continue to be sold to other
SWP contractors or to the DWR Turnback Pool Program.” Eighty
to ninety percent of the water in the turnback pool is purchased
by Southern California entities.
       CWIN argues nothing ensures that sales elsewhere can
continue or continue without conditions or restrictions. Of
course, anything can happen. But the purpose of the no project
alternative is to provide a “factually based forecast of the
environmental impacts of preserving the status quo.” (Planning
& Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (2000)
83 Cal.App.4th 892, 917.) The status quo is that the City’s SWP
allocations are sold to other SWP contractors or to the CDWR
turnback pool program. That is what the no project portion of the
EIR discloses.
       CWIN cites Water Code section 85021: “The policy of the
State of California is to reduce reliance on the Delta in meeting
California’s future water supply needs through a statewide
strategy of investing in improved regional supplies, conservation,
and water use efficiency. Each region that depends on water
from the Delta watershed shall improve its regional self-reliance
for water through investment in water use efficiency, water
recycling, advanced water technologies, local and regional water
supply projects, and improved regional coordination of local and
regional water supply efforts.”

                               10
       That is a fine statement of policy. But a fine statement of
policy does not reduce the actual use of water. Moreover, the
policy is to “reduce,” not eliminate, reliance on the Delta. In fact,
Water Code section 85031, subdivision (a) provides in part: “This
division does not diminish, impair, or otherwise affect in any
manner . . . water rights protections . . . .” No one reasonably
expects reliance on Delta water will end in the foreseeable future,
if ever. What is reasonably foreseeable is that the SWP will
continue to allocate water in most years, and without the SWI
Project, the allocation will be sold to other SWP contractors or to
the turnback program.
       There is simply not enough SWP water for every entity that
is entitled to it. If the City does not use its allocation, it will be
used by another entity. The Delta will not be aided if the City
decides not to build the pipeline.
                                   IV.
                           Population growth
       CWIN contends the EIR’s analysis of potential population
growth is inadequate.
       But the CWIN failed to raise the issue in the trial court.
Failure to raise the issue in the trial court waives the issue on
appeal. (Farrar v. Direct Commerce, Inc. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th
1257, 1275, fn. 3.)
       Indeed, CWIN argues that the SWP water supply is not
reliable enough and that a backup source of water will have to be
found when the SWP supply inevitably fails. Now CWIN wants
to belatedly argue that SWP may produce such an abundance of
water that it may spurn population growth.
       An abundance of water is a problem the City is highly
unlikely to face now or in the foreseeable future. Any suggestion

                                 11
otherwise would be based on speculation so remote as to be
meaningless.
                        DISPOSITION
     The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to
respondent.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

             YEGAN, J.

             BALTODANO, J.

                               12
                    Ronda J. McKaig, Judge

               Superior Court County of Ventura

                ______________________________

      Law Office of Roger B. Moore and Roger B. Moore for
Petitioner and Appellant.
      Andrew M. Heglund, Miles P. Hogan, City Attorneys; Best
Best & Krieger, Charity B. Schiller, Amy E. Hoyt for Defendant
and Respondent.

                              13