In a lengthy published opinion filed March 5, 2026, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) affirmed the trial court’s judgment adopting a “physical solution,” to be implemented by a watermaster, in a multiparty, three-phase litigation adjudicating competing groundwater rights in a Ventura County basin pursuant to the procedures of Code of Civil Procedure section 830 et seq. Los Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition v. Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 et al. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 1170. While the constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and judicial water law rules and principles discussed and applied in the case are important and interesting, I’m not going to write further about them here; rather, in keeping with this blog’s subject matter, I’ll stick to the two paragraphs of the Court’s 45-page opinion that disposed of the novel CEQA arguments raised by a dissatisfied plaintiff and appellant.
The judgment recited that the watermaster is not a “public agency” subject to CEQA (citing Pub. Resources Code, § 21063) and that “nothing in the Judgment or the Physical Solution, nor in the implementation thereof, nor the Watermaster’s planning . . .or decisions in accordance with the authority of the Judgment shall be deemed a ‘project’ subject to review under the CEQA.” An appellant’s contrary argument was tersely rejected as “incorrect” because, per the Court of Appeal: “CEQA does not apply to the court or its agents.” “CEQA applies only to ‘discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies.’” (Quoting Robinson v. Superior Court (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1144, 1162 (my 4/19/23 post on which can be found here), citing Pub. Resources Code, § 21080(a), emph. in orig.)
While a “public agency” includes state agencies, boards, and commissions, and local or regional agencies, “[i]t does not include the courts of the state.” (Citing and quoting CEQA Guidelines, § 15379 (emph. Court’s).) Summing up its reasoning and holding, the Court stated:
And, where the power to act “is reserved to the courts,” the agency charged with implementing the court order is not subject to CEQA. (Hillside Memorial Park & Mortuary v. Golden State Water Co. (2011) 205 Cal.App.4th 534, 550.) Fox Canyon, in its capacity as watermaster, was charged with implementing the judgment and physical solution under the court’s authority. CEQA does not apply under these circumstances.”
Questions? Please contact Arthur F. Coon of Miller Starr Regalia. Miller Starr Regalia has had a well-established reputation as a leading real estate law firm for more than sixty years. For nearly all that time, the firm also has written Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 4th, a 12-volume treatise on California real estate law. “The Book” is the most widely used and judicially recognized real estate treatise in California and is cited by practicing attorneys and courts throughout the state. The firm has expertise in all real property matters, including full-service litigation and dispute resolution services, transactions, acquisitions, dispositions, leasing, financing, common interest development, construction, management, eminent domain and inverse condemnation, title insurance, environmental law and land use. For more information, visit www.msrlegal.com