SAVE OUR CARMEL RIVER v. MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Filed 6/23/06; pub. & mod. order 7/21/06 (see end of opn.)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| SAVE OUR CARMEL RIVER, et. al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, et. al., Defendants and Respondents. | H029242 (Monterey County Super. Ct. No. M 72061) |
Appellants Save Our Carmel River, Patricia Bernardi and the Open Monterey Project appeal from the denial of their petition for a writ of mandate to overturn decisions by the City of Monterey (City) and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (Water District) to approve a water credit transfer. The City had found the water credit transfer was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)[1] under the categorical exemption for replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities contained in section 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines.[2] The Water District had also approved the transfer, based in part on the City's exemption determination, and further found that the water credit transfer complied with the Water District's rules and regulations governing such transfers.
Appellants contend that the water credit transfer does not fall within the categorical exemption for replacement or reconstruction of existing structures or facilities. (Guidelines, § 15302.) They further contend that even if the categorical exemption were applicable, there was evidence that two of the exceptions contained in the Guidelines applied here to remove the project from exempt status. (Guidelines, §§ 15300.2, subd. (b), 15300.2, subd. (c).) Finally, they contend that the Water District violated its own rules in approving the transfer.
We find that section 15302 of the Guidelines, which provides that the replacement of an existing structure or facility is exempt from CEQA review, does not apply to the water credit transfer here. We further find that the Water District's approval of the transfer was not supported by substantial evidence in the record, in part because it was based on the City's exemption determination as lead agency, but also because the record reflected that the Water District did not consider the possible cumulative impacts of the water credit transfer, as expressly required by its rules. We will therefore reverse the trial court's denial of the writ of mandate and direct that the court enter an order granting the writ of mandate.
BACKGROUND
I. Water Issues on the Monterey Peninsula--An Historical Perspective
The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District was created by the State Legislature in 1977, based on findings that integrated water management was necessary because of severe water shortages in the area. The mandate of the Water District is to conserve and augment existing water supplies and to prevent waste and unreasonable use of those supplies. (Water Code Appendix, Chapter 118, § 118-2.) Nearly 25 years later, this court wrote that â€
