The court affirms a district court decision that the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS') and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) participation in a Hawaii Department of Water Supply (DWS) transmission project did not constitute a major federal action that triggered the National E...

The court holds that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not apply to the Secretary of the Interior's designation of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The court first holds that an Oregon county has standing to challenge the Secretary's failure to comply with NEP...

The court holds that the Farmer's Home Administration (FmHA) did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) based on an environmental assessment (EA) regarding authorization of a loan for the construction of a federally assisted apartment complex fo...

The court holds that most of the final environmental impact statement (EIS) for a proposed highway realignment through Hatton Canyon near Carmel-by-the-Sea in California satisfies the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The court then address...

The Court holds that the issue of liability in a developer's regulatory takings claim against a city was properly submitted to a jury. After the city imposed more rigorous demands each time it denied five proposals to develop a 37.6-acre oceanfront parcel in Monterey, California, the developer filed...

The court holds that the amount a bankrupt casino paid to the casino's previous owner for environmental remediation does not offset a debt owed the previous owner. The casino was to make monthly payments to the previous owner under the terms of a promissory note. It suspended payment, however, after...

The court holds that a city and county have standing to challenge the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) for implementing a water rights acquisition plan in Nevada before preparing a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS). The court first holds that the National Environmental Policy A...

A California appellate court held that the California Coastal Commission has appellate jurisdiction over a coastal development subdivision project. A county's approval of a "principal permitted use" development within a coastal zone is not appealable to the Commission. But when the development proje...