C.A. 1st;
A148400

The First Appellate District affirmed a judgment. The court held that the State Water Resources Control Board, in formulating a new policy, adequately addressed the potential environmental effects of surface water users switching to groundwater pumping as a result of the policy.

The State Water Resources Control Board approved a policy designed to maintain instream flows in coastal streams north of San Francisco. Living Rivers Council filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging that decision, arguing that the policy should be vacated because the board's revised substitute environmental document (RSED) supporting it “sent conflicting signals” regarding whether policy-induced increases in groundwater use would cause significant impacts. Both the substitute environmental document (SED) and the RSED found the policy could cause more people to pump groundwater, and additionally found the impacts on groundwater resources and surface flows would be “significant.” Yet, Living Rivers argued, the RSED “equivocated” by asserting these significant impacts were uncertain or unlikely.