On Friday, the California Court of Appeals filed its opinion in the case of Save the El Dorado Canal v. El Dorado Irrigation District, et al. affirming the lower court’s decision in favor of the defendants and respondents.
According to the opinion, El Dorado Irrigation District is a public water agency located in El Dorado County, California that operates a water system that relies exclusively on surface water to meet its potable water demand. The court states the water system contains more than 1,250 miles of pipe and 27 miles of earthen ditches connecting various water facilities, including five water treatment plants.
The petition by the Save the El Dorado Canal challenged a proposed project approved by the District and the El Dorado Irrigation District Board of Directors that would replace three miles of the District’s unlined earthen ditch system, referred to as the Upper Main Ditch, with a buried water transmission pipeline. The respondents stated that the conversion from earthen ditch to a pipeline would result in an average water savings of about 1,800 acre-feet per year.
The court states, that in addition to the proposed project above, the respondents considered three alternatives including the Blair Road alternative that was ultimately approved. The opinion states that the Blair Road alternative also converts the Upper Main Ditch into a buried pipeline, but rather than running the pipe along the existing ditch, the majority of the pipeline would run beneath Blair Road, resulting in the District’s abandonment of most of the Upper Mian Ditch.
According to the court, in June 2015, the District issued an initial study and notice of preparation and held the required 30-day public review and comment period. Further, in June 2018, the District issued a draft environmental impact report for the proposed project and the three alternatives. The district complied with the California Environmental Quality Act’s 45-day public review and comment period and, due to substantial requests, extended the period by 30 days. The court states that the final environmental impact report was issued in January 2019.
Subsequently, the court states, that in May 2019, Save the El Dorado Canal filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the certification of the environmental impact report and approval of the proposed project. The appellant purported that the approval of the project violated the California Environmental Quality Act because the environmental impact report failed to provide adequate project description omitting crucial facts about the Upper Main Ditch, and the environmental impact report failed to adequately analyze the impacts of abandonment to hydrology, biological resources, and risks associated with wildfires.
According to the opinion, the trial court issued a 74-page ruling, thoroughly addressing each of 10 contentions raised by the appellant but ultimately denied the petition. On appeal, the court stated that it was tasked with reviewing whether the respondents abused their discretion when approving the project and not the trial court’s ruling.
The court held that the respondents did not abuse their discretion in approving the Blair Road alternative and that the draft and final EIRs adequately informed respondents and the public about the nature of the watershed and the fact that the District would no longer maintain the abandoned portion of the Upper Main Ditch.
