Sierra Club v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, No. 14-15998 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit challenging the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Regional Plan Update (RPU) of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). The RPU generally restricts future development to areas that are already developed, and sets forth the amount of further development that will be permitted in those areas in the future. As a preliminary matter, the court held that plaintiffs have standing to assert claims that are ripe. On the merits, the court concluded that the district court properly entered summary judgment in favor of TRPA where the final EIS for the RPU adequately addressed localized impacts on soil conservation and water quality. Therefore, the EIS’s analysis of the effects of concentrating development was not arbitrary or capricious, and did not violate Regional Planning Compact article VII(a)(2)(A) by failing to address significant environmental impacts of the RPU. The court also held that TRPA reasonably concluded that, in light of anticipated improvements in best management practices (BMP) maintenance, the development permitted in the RPU would have less than a significant effect on water quality. Thus, the TRPA’s assumptions regarding BMPs were supported by substantial evidence and are entitled to deference. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, including the district court's imposition of costs and denial of reimbursement to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice was denied as moot.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment and award of costs in favor of Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, a bi-state land use and environmental resource planning agency for the Lake Tahoe Region, on environmental organizations’ claims that the environmental impact statement for TRPA’s Regional Plan Update did not comply with the requirements of the Regional Planning Compact between California and Nevada. The panel held that plaintiffs had standing and their claims were ripe. Applying a standard similar to the standard for evaluating an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act, the panel held that TRPA’s environmental impact statement and Regional Plan Update adequately addressed the localized effects of the runoff created by the amount of development permitted under the Update. TRPA’s analysis of the effects of concentrating development in “community centers” was not arbitrary or capricious and did not violate Compact article VII(a)(2)(A) by failing to address significant environmental impacts of the Regional Plan Update. The panel also held that TRPA’s assumptions regarding best management practices and whether they would reduce water quality impacts of concentrated development under the Regional Plan Update were not arbitrary or capricious and were supported by SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA 3 substantial evidence. The panel affirmed the district court’s award of costs.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.