| OCR Text |
Show r o to tfic public and to other entities within government of all environmental effects likely to stem from agency action. Accordingly, the judgment of the District /* Court is reversed and the case is remanded to * the District Court for entry of appropriate declaratory relief. So ordered. S COUNTY OF INYO v. YORTY California Court of Appeal Third Appellate District COUNTY OF INYO v. SAM YORTY, FRANK PALMIERI, ROBERT V. PHILLIPS, MARY J. BORN, THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., No. 3 Civil 13886, June 5, 1973 j WATER Federal, state, and local regulation - In general (§28.01) Federal, state, and local regulation - Statutory construction -- In general (§28.051) Federal, state, and local regulation - Administrative agencies -- Procedure before agencies (§28.621) Los Angeles' continuing and expanded extraction of subsurface water from its wells in Inyo County requires preparation of California Environmental Quality Act environmental impact report since it is separate ongoing project that may have significant environmental effect, even though ground water extraction program was authorized and aqueduct to carry water was constructed before effective date of Act. Frank H. Fowles, district attorney, Independence, Calif., for petitioner. Kenneth E. Downey, Los Angeles, Calif., for respondent. Frederic P. Sutherland, Center for Law and the Public Interest, Los Angeles; and Richard E. Gutting, Jr., Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, San Francisco, filed amicus curiae briefs in support of petitioner. i'uti Text of Opinion RICHARDSON, J.: Petitioner (hereinafter "County") sought a writ of supersedeas which we treated as a petition for writ of mandate, and thereupon issued an alternative writ. Respondents filed appropriate reply to the petition and have also in the trial court interposed their demurrer and answer. These proceedings follow the filing of a complaint by County in the County of Inyo against respondent City of Los Angeles, a municipal corporation, its Department of Water and Power, the president and secretary of the department and commission, its,chief engineer who is also general manager, and Does 1 through 20 (all hereinafter "City"). The complaint sought a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction to halt the extraction of subsurface waters from the Owens Valley in Inyo County « until the filing by defendants of an Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter "EIR") required by the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA"), and a determination of the environmental effect of the continued and expanded extraction of subsurface water. A temporary restraining order was issued by the Inyo County Superior Court limiting any increase in the withdrawal of water in the affected area. Subsequently, a motion by City for change of venue from Inyo to Sacramento County was granted. A hearing was held in Sacramento County Superior Court which resulted in denial of the application for preliminary injunction and dissolution of the temporary restraining order, from which action the present petition stems. County has also filed notice of appeal. County generally asserts "error by the trial court in application of the Environmental Quality Act to the respondents' activities within petitioner's county." More specifically, County alleges: (1) The order dissolving the temporary restraining order is an appealable' order but to await the formal resolution of the appeal, with its attendant delays, will render the substantial questions of law moot in that irreversible environmental damage will have resulted. (2) The trial court erred in its determination that CEQA did not apply to City's activities because of its view that such action was a continuation of a preexisting activity or project born before the effective date of CEQA. Narrowly stated, the issue before us is whether City is required to file an EIR with reference to its continued extraction of subsurface waters from the Owens Valley area of County. Resolution of this issue and an evaluation of |
