Wagner Farms v. Modesto Irrigation Dist.

Filed 9/13/06 Wagner Farms v. Modesto Irrigation Dist. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. William A. Mayhew, Judge.

Gilmore, Wood, Vinnard & Magness and David M. Gilmore for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Joy A. Warren; Joel S. Moskowitz; Downey Brand and Jennifer L. Harder for Defendant and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Plaintiff farmers appeal the denial of their petition for writ of mandate challenging the approval by defendant Modesto Irrigation District (MID) of a project and related environmental impact report (EIR) involving the construction of 15.9 miles of high voltage electricity transmission lines from a switching station near Westley to MID's Rosemore substation.

Plaintiffs argue that the EIR violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)^[1] because (1) the discussion of feasible alternatives to the project is inadequate, (2) in approving the EIR, MID failed to proceed in the manner required by the Williamson Act (Gov. Code, § 52100 et seq.) with respect to certain notice and finding requirements, (3) the description of the location of the project was imprecise and therefore legally inadequate, and (4) the analysis of cumulative impacts was defective because growth-inducing impacts were not included.

First, we reject the contention that the EIR is inadequate in its discussion of alternatives; we do so because the alternatives to which plaintiffs refer would not â€