North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Kawamura
Annotate this CaseThe California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) prepared and certified a programmatic environmental impact report (EIR) for a seven-year program to eradicate an invasive pest, the light brown apple moth (LBAM), but “at the last minute” approved instead a seven-year program to control LBAMs based on new information that eradication was no longer attainable. The EIR did not evaluate control as a reasonable alternative to eradication, and there was no supplemental environmental review in connection with the last-minute change. In two appeals, consolidated for the Court of Appeal's review, challenged trial court decisions that denied petitions for writ of administrative mandamus that asserted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) violations and challenging the program approved by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and its former Secretary A.G. Kawamura. Appellants contended the EIR violated CEQA by making assumptions unsupported by substantial evidence and by inadequately addressing environmental impacts, a reasonable range of alternatives, and cumulative impacts. Appellants also contended the CDFA’s “last-minute” approval of a control program instead of the eradication program rendered the environmental review deficient in failing to provide an accurate and stable project description, inadequately discussing alternatives, and improperly “segmenting” the project by reviewing a seven-year program but approving a seven-year program that will have to continue beyond seven years. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded that, even before the new information came to light that eradication was no longer attainable, the EIR violated CEQA by giving the project’s “objective” an artificially narrow definition (“eradication of LBAMs”) and thereby omitting analysis of pest control as a reasonable alternative to the eradication program. The EIR acknowledged the project’s “purposes” included protecting California native plants and agricultural crops from damage. "The EIR’s omissions leave the record devoid of evidence to prove CDFA’s claim that the last-minute change was legally acceptable because the adopted control program was narrower than the EIR’s eradication program." The trial court judgments were reversed and the cases remanded for further proceedings.
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.