Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal
131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 186 (2003)
The Newhall Land and Farming Company and Valencia Corporation were planning a development called West Creek, which would be a mixed residential and commercial development in northern Los Angeles County. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, an environmental-impact report must be completed for any housing development. The environmental-impact report must contain a thorough analysis that reasonably informs the reader of the amount of water available. Los Angeles County (defendant) was the lead agency preparing the environmental-impact report for the West Creek project. The draft environmental-impact report estimated that the West Creek project would demand 2,194 acre-feet of water per year. The draft environmental-impact report also included information regarding the current overall supply and demand of water in the area and the projected long-term supply and demand of water in the area. The supply data included current entitlements of the water suppliers to water from the State Water Project. However, the State Water Project granted entitlements based on its plan to develop facilities to generate 4.23 million acre-feet of water per year. In reality, the State Water Project has not been fully completed and only produces 2 to 2.5 million acre-feet of water per year. The Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (the organization) (plaintiff) submitted a comment to the draft environmental-impact report, asserting that there is no guarantee that 100 percent of the State Water Project entitlements would be received. In response to that comment, the environmental-impact report was revised to note that future demand might exceed supply, but all future developments would have to prove the availability of water. Therefore, the development of the West Creek project would not result in an unavoidable significant impact on water resources in the area. Los Angeles County certified the final environmental-impact report and approved the project. The organization then petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandate, asserting that the environmental-impact report was inadequate. The trial court denied the petition. The organization appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Gilbert, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 724,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 724,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.