1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Cal.App.4th
  4. 2 Cal.App.4th
  5. 2 Cal.App.4th 960 (1992)
 

CITY OF SACRAMENTO v. STATE WATER RES. CONTROL BD.

Docket Nos. C007450, C007941.

2 Cal.App.4th 960 (1992)

3 Cal. Rptr.2d 643

CITY OF SACRAMENTO et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Court of Appeals of California, Third District.

January 17, 1992.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

COUNSEL

John K. Van de Kamp and Daniel E. Lungren, Attorneys General, R.H. Conett, Assistant Attorney General, and Kathleen E. Gnekow, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendants and Appellants.

James P. Jackson and Sharon Seidorf Cardenas, City Attorneys, William P. Carnazzo, Lawrence M. Lunardini and Richard E. Archibald, Deputy City Attorneys, Remy & Thomas, Tina A. Thomas, Robert H. Thompson and James G. Moose for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

OPINION

PUGLIA, P.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...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases