City of Sacramento v. State Water Resources Control Board

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 60·2 Cal. App. 4th 960·3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 643·92 Daily Journal DAR 1654·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 593
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 17, 1992Docket Nos. C007450, C007941California6,057 words

Opinion

Opinion

Puglia, J.

In this appeal we consider whether annual rice pesticide plans devised by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA) for implementation in California’s Central Valley are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.; hereafter CEQA).

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Valley Region (Regional Board) and DFA (hereafter collectively defendants) appeal from a judgment of the superior court granting a writ of mandate requiring the Regional Board to comply with CEQA in connection with its review and approval of these annual plans. On appeal, defendants contend the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ because the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. They further contend CEQA is inapplicable to the Regional Board’s review because DFA is the appropriate lead agency and its pesticide regulatory duties are exempt from CEQA. Finding merit in this latter contention, we shall reverse.

I

We begin with a brief discussion of the interrelation between California water quality law and the law regulating the agricultural use…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.