Description: Challenge to update to long-term water resources and conservation plan for San Diego County.
-
San Diego Coastkeeper v. San Diego County Water Authority
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/30/2015 Minute Order Download Petition for writ of mandate denied. California State Court Rejected Challenges to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for San Diego County Water Authority Master Plan Update. A California Superior Court upheld the San Diego County Water Authority’s (SDCWA’s) approval of an update to a regional master plan for water development and conservation. The petitioner, San Diego Coastkeeper, had also challenged the SDCWA’s Climate Action Plan and its supplemental program environmental impact report. The court said that “substantial evidence” supported the SDCWA’s actions, including its decision not to include greenhouse emissions from upstream water vendors. The court also upheld the SDCWA’s determination not to include an emissions analysis for a potential desalination plant, which was “just one of a list of possible long-term options.” The court also rejected claims that the SDCWA had incorrectly calculated baseline emissions and that the SDCWA had not adequately mitigated emissions. 04/25/2014 Petition for Writ of Mandate Download Petition for writ of mandate filed. An environmental organization filed a lawsuit alleging that the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it approved updates to its long-term plan for water development and conservation. The two elements of the plan, which SDCWA called “a road map through 2035 for future capital projects,” were an update to the 2003 Regional Water Facilities Master Plan and a Climate Action Plan (CAP). Petitioner alleged a number of shortcomings related to climate change, including that the CAP “did not accurately account for current or projected future emissions” or “adequately provide for emission reduction goals and energy conservation opportunities.” Petitioner also alleged that the Supplemental Program Environmental Impact Report (SPEIR) did not comply with AB 32 (California’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions law) and that it failed to ensure consistency with Executive Order S-3-05 (a precursor to AB 32 that set greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets). Petitioner also asserted that the SPEIR did not use proper criteria to assess climate change impacts, that it failed to consider health impacts related to climate change, and that the CAP was not a qualified greenhouse gas reduction plan under CEQA guidelines.