Sierra Club v. California Department of Water Resources

San Francisco Baykeeper, a Tribe and Tribal organization, and other organizations challenged the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) approval of the Delta Conveyance Project, which the petitioners said would divert water from the Sacramento River, "denying critical freshwater flows to the [Sacramento-San Joaquin] Delta and the San Francisco Bay" and have "devastating impacts on the Delta." The petitioners alleged the DWR’s environmental impact report (EIR) for the project was inadequate, including because it failed to address “the likely implications climate change will have on the efficacy and impacts associated with the Project.” The alleged shortcomings included that the EIR’s baseline excluded the effects of climate change and that the EIR did not consider long-term effects of the project in 2040 or 2070 that included the effects of climate change. The organizations contended that “[t]he billions to be spent on the Project could be used instead for more effective climate adaptation purposes like flood protection investments throughout the Delta.”

Sierra Club and other organizations filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court challenging the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) approval of the Delta Conveyance Project, which the petitioners alleged “would divert very large quantities of fresh water from the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary for export south.” The project would include water intakes to divert water from the Sacramento River in the North Delta into a 45-mile-long tunnel to pumping plants in the South Delta. DWR’s objectives for the project included “[t]o help address anticipated rising sea levels and other reasonably foreseeable consequences of climate change and extreme weather events.” The organizations alleged that approval of the project violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Delta Reform Act, and Fish and Game Code § 3511, which prohibits taking or possession of “fully protected birds.” The organizations alleged that DWR violated CEQA by failing to consider feasible alternatives that would meet the requirements of the Delta Reform Act, climate change and adaptation laws, and the California Endangered Species Act. The organizations also alleged that the CEQA review did not adequately address “foreseeable cumulative impacts on the Bay Delta watershed in light of future climate change, particularly with regards to water supplies in the context of sea level rise, changes in storm patterns, and watershed run-off.” They contended that the environmental impact report (EIR) failed to disclose and evaluate “the effects that worsening climate change coupled with Project operations diverting water pose to surface water, water supply, listed fish species, water quality, and public health, including worsening harmful algal blooms.” Their other allegations included that the EIR did not adequately discuss climate change’s implications for future water deliveries for the project.