Description: Challenge to environmental review for California's Statewide Plant Pest Prevention and Management Program.
-
North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Department of Food & Agriculture
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 10/15/2021 Opinion Download Trial court instructed to enter new and different judgments granting in part and denying in part the consolidated petitions for writ of mandate and to issue new peremptory writs of mandate. California Court of Appeal Declined to Consider Greenhouse Gas Emissions Issue in Review of Pest Management Program. In an appeal concerning the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for the Statewide Plant Pest Prevention and Management Program, the California Court of Appeal declined to take up claims that CEQA review documents failed to address increased impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. The appellate court noted that the petitioners raising these claims did not file an appeal or cross-appeal of the trial court’s ruling (which did not address impacts on greenhouse gas emissions), and that the petitioners had not shown that review of their claims was otherwise necessary. -
North Coast Rivers Alliance v. California Department of Food & Agriculture
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 02/22/2018 Judgment Download Judgment entered. California Court Set Aside Environmental Reviews for Plant Pest Prevention and Management Program but Rejected Argument That Agency Failed to Consider Greenhouse Gas and Other Impacts of Program Modifications. A California state court granted petitions to set aside a program environmental impact report (PEIR) and PEIR addendum for the Statewide Plant Pest Prevention and Management Program, but not on grounds related to the petitioners’ arguments that the greenhouse gas impacts of modifications to the Program had not been assessed. The petitioners contended that the Department of Food and Agriculture’s finding that a supplemental environmental impact report was not required for the modifications was not supported by substantial evidence because the Department had not considered whether the modifications would alter categories of impacts the PEIR identified as significant or potentially significant, including impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. The court said that it agreed with the Department on this front and found that the petitioners had failed to meet their burden.