# Friends of Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency

> California Court of Appeal · June 13, 2003 · 134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 322

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9745453

## Case

- **Full name:** FRIENDS OF THE EEL RIVER Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY, Defendant and Respondent; PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Real Party in Interest and Respondent
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** June 13, 2003
- **Citations:** 134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 322; 108 Cal. App. 4th 859
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Swager
- **Judges:** Margulies, Swager
- **Cited by:** 30 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9745453

## Opinion text

SWAGER, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
The majority opinion concludes that the description of the Potter Valley Project’s (Project) environmental setting is deficient “because it does not disclose either the impact on Eel River salmonid species of diverting water from the Eel River or the fact that FERC is considering proposals to curtail these diversions in order to prevent harm to these species.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 874.) Despite this conclusion, the majority holds that the harm caused to the salmonid species in the Eel River is not a “significant impact caused by this Project. . . .” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 875.) I respectfully dissent from this portion of the opinion.
“Before the impacts of a project can be assessed and mitigation measures considered, an EIR must describe the existing environment. It is only against *883 this baseline that any significant environmental effects can be determined. ([Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14], §§ 15125, 15126.2, subd. (a).)” (County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 952 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 66 ].) The majority recognizes that an adequate description of the Project’s environmental setting is necessary to insure that the EIR’s (environmental impact report) analysis of significant impacts “is as accurate as possible” and notes two major deficiencies. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 874.) The existing description veils the Project’s dependence on maintaining existing Eel River diversions and the effects of those diversions on fish populations in that river. It also gives only a myopic view of the FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) proceedings in which flow curtailments from the Eel River have been proposed. Thus, a sufficient “baseline” does not exist from which it can be accurately determined if the Project will, or will not have, a significant impact on the Eel River.
Until this veil is lifted by an adequate description of the environmental setting, as required by the majority opinion, it is premature to find that the Project has no significant impact on the Eel River. I therefore dissent from the majority’s holding that the Project will not cause a significant impact on the Eel River. In all other respects, I concur in the opinion.
A petition for a rehearing was denied June 13, 2003, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9745453. Public record. Not legal advice.