Listen to this post

In City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon (Case No. C102070), the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment rejecting a neighbor city’s CEQA challenge to the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the 2.4 million-square-foot Giovannioni Logistics Center project in American Canyon. The court held that the EIR and associated Water Supply Assessment (WSA) complied with CEQA and did not prejudicially abuse the lead agency’s discretion, despite critiques concerning water supply disclosures.

Background

The City of American Canyon certified an EIR and approved a large industrial warehouse/logistics complex on undeveloped land in the city. American Canyon relies almost entirely on imported water—primarily supplied by the State Water Project and supplemented by purchases from the neighboring City of Vallejo under a 1996 water supply agreement. Vallejo filed a verified petition for writ of mandate under CEQA against American Canyon and the project’s developer, Buzz Oates LLC, arguing that the EIR and attached WSA were deficient because they allegedly failed to disclose: (1) the actual volume of water purchased from Vallejo, (2) place-of-use restrictions on Vallejo water, (3) the potential impacts of contract litigation between the cities on water deliveries, and (4) emergency curtailment risks.

The trial court denied the petition and entered judgment for respondents American Canyon and Buzz Oates. Vallejo appealed, contending the EIR’s water supply disclosures were legally insufficient under CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and Water Code sections 10910–10911.

Court of Appeal’s Analysis and Holding

The appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of American Canyon, concluding that Vallejo had not shown prejudicial abuse of discretion in the EIR’s water supply analysis:

  • Relying on established CEQA principles, including the analytical standards articulated in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, the court reaffirmed that an EIR need only demonstrate that water is reasonably likely to be available from identified sources; it need not guarantee that a project is definitely assured water supplies. Further, the court explained that the level of certainty is a flexible standard that should be applied on a spectrum based on the stage of the particular project approval. For instance, a higher degree of certainty may be appropriate for an individual development, as opposed to a general plan.
  • The court concluded substantial evidence supported the EIR’s conclusion that projected water supplies were sufficient to serve the project without significant environmental effect. Vallejo’s suggestions that additional detail (e.g., monthly curtailment projections, granular volumes purchased, or contract litigation nuances) should be included did not render the EIR deficient because such detail was not required to inform agency decision-making or public participation under CEQA.
  • The court emphasized that an EIR’s omission of information that may be desirable or helpful but is not legally required does not amount to a prejudicial CEQA violation—particularly where the record demonstrated water supply was reasonably likely to be available from identified sources.

Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the superior court’s denial of Vallejo’s writ petition.

Key Takeaways

  • This decision reinforces the established rule that CEQA’s water supply analysis need not provide exhaustive detail or guarantee absolute assurance of supply; it need only show supplies are reasonably likely to be available.
  • Alleged EIR omissions of data that may be considered relevant, but which are not necessary to allow decision-makers to evaluate the pros and cons of supplying a project water, do not constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion.
  • Project opponents must identify legally mandated disclosure failures that affect the informational adequacy of an EIR, not merely urge inclusion of additional, non-required detail.