Two rulings by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the setting of permissible pollution levels in surface waters offer a mixed review of the issue.
A garbage company can challenge the environmental review of a competitor's proposed trash processing facility because the garbage company was enforcing a public duty of a local government, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to review a Clean Water Act case from California's Central Valley. The case involves the federal government's ability to regulate agricultural activity in wetlands.
California is on the verge of an unprecedented surge in school construction. State voters' willingness to lower the threshold of approval for local school bonds from two-thirds to 55% has drastically increased the number of bonds issued by districts. If state voters approve the two largest bonds in California history — $12.5 billion in November and $13 billion in March 2004 — school construction would take off.
Flat-rate "franchise fees" that the City of Roseville charges customers of its municipal water, sewer and refuse collections systems are in violation of Proposition 218, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled.
Opponents of a proposed expansion of a hazardous waste dump in rural Kern County took the proper steps to earn a hearing before a state-appointed appeals board, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has ruled in one of its rare published opinions.
The State Supreme Court has accepted for review a Proposition 218 case from Shasta County. All seven justices voted to review the decision in Richmond v. Shasta Community Services District, No. S105078 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, April 2002).
the full text of the Nevada County 2002 "Property Owner Reimbursement Process Initiative" is contained in this article. For context on the article, make sure to see Paul Shigley's featured article in this same June 2002 edition of CP&DR, entitled "Local Takings Initiative Heads to Ballot."