Navigating Environmental Restrictions on Alternative Project Delivery for Complex Infrastructure Projects
On-Demand Webinar | The New NEPA Regulations: A Practical Guide to What You Need to Know
Hot Topics for Waste-to-Energy Investors and Developers
On July 3, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or the “Commission”), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Army Corps”), and the Departments of Energy (“DOE”), Interior (“DOI”), Transportation (“DOT”),...more
A California court of appeal has held that a lead agency conducting environmental review, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), of “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT) impacts may not unquestioningly use thresholds...more
A change from heavy regulation of vineyards to a complete ban on new vineyards did not so destabilize the original project description as to amount to a prejudicial abuse of discretion and require a new EIR. Gooden v. County...more
A California Court of Appeal upheld the California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division’s determination that a project to convert a plugged oil well into a wastewater disposal well fit within the...more
The month of September was a bad month for the City of Minneapolis’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan (2040 Comp Plan). On September 5, 2023, Minnesota’s Fourth Judicial District (Hennepin County) released a decision temporarily...more
The First District Court of Appeal overturned the City of San Francisco’s decision that Saint Ignatius High School’s project to install four permanent 90-foot-tall athletic field lights was exempt from CEQA. Saint Ignatius...more
The Court of Appeal held that the City of Mount Shasta violated CEQA by approving a wastewater permit for a water bottling plant without making specific findings as to each potentially significant impact identified as...more
A California Court of Appeal held that special legislation providing fast-track judicial review to the Howard Terminal Project did not impose a deadline for the Governor to certify the project for streamlined environmental...more
In California Coastkeeper v. State Lands Commission, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the State Lands Commission’s decision to prepare a supplemental environmental impact report (EIR) for a desalination plant in...more
On April 20, 2021, the First District Court of Appeal filed its first published opinion interpreting California Senate Bill 35’s streamlining provisions in Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley. The Court held that the City...more
Bricker attorneys Frank Merrill and Christine Rideout Schirra will be presenting 'Environmental Permitting Appeals and Pipeline Construction: Are the circuit courts the new environmental review courts?' for the Institute of...more
In SEQRA litigation, there is an oft-quoted proposition that the Lead Agency may not abdicate or defer its responsibilities under SEQRA to another agency. See Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Se., 9 N.Y.3d 219,...more
During the week of August 19, 2019, both the Appellate and Supreme Courts of California issued decisive opinions clarifying the parameters of agency action subject to environmental review under the California Environmental...more
In Rimler v. City of New York, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 03599 (2d Dept, May 8, 2019), which involved a challenge to the issuance of a negative declaration, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a judgment of the...more
The court of appeal held that the plaintiff’s challenge to the City of Rohnert Park’s reapproval of a Wal-Mart grocery store was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because a prior proceeding had raised the same issues. ...more
The Supreme Court of California has granted review of two cases to resolve a split among courts of appeal over whether the issuance of well permits pursuant to state standards is subject to CEQA. California Water Impact...more
After a long drought, the California Supreme Court at its November 14, 2018 conference voted unanimously to grant review of three decisions involving the question of whether well permits issued pursuant to county ordinances...more
The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the project baseline under CEQA for construction of a new home did not include demolition of a potential historic structure that had occurred before submittal of a permit...more
An application was made for a site plan to the Planning Board of the City of Poughkeepsie for a 24 two-bedroom unit condominium complex in four buildings on a 3.4 acre parcel adjacent to an historic district. ...more
Parking impacts (as distinguished from secondary impacts related to parking) associated with infill development in transit priority areas are exempt from environmental review under certain circumstances, a California...more
Earlier this week, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an administrative stay of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) approval of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,...more
On May 25, 2017, the First Appellate District published a modified version of its unpublished March 23, 2017 opinion, holding that the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District’s (“MCAQMD”) issuance of an “Authority to...more
On May 3–4, 2017, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in three cases with significant implications for California land use law. Below we summarize the main issue(s) argued in each matter and possible outcomes....more
Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz ruling also clarifies CEQA "Piecemeal" Doctrine - The Sixth District Court of Appeal's recent decision in Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz provides useful California...more
On June 6, 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion holding that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission acted improperly in separately analyzing the environmental impacts of several nominally separate...more