CEQA Water Supply Analyses: Court Clarifies Disclosure Requirements
Vallejo v. City of American Canyon (2026) 117 Cal.App.5th 1112
This case is a helpful guide for practitioners involved in the preparation of water supply analyses and the disclosure of water supply uncertainty.
The Court’s Analysis
Petitioner first asserted the WSA was inadequate for failing “to disclose amount of water actually purchased—as opposed to the amount of water available for purchase.” In rejecting this assertion, the Court reasoned the City has “historically received ‘100 percent of the full contracted volume’ of…permit water for all but one year.”
Petitioner next asserted the WSA failed to disclose “place of use restrictions” which it alleged violated CEQA’s requirements to discuss the uncertainty of the project’s water supply. The Court reasoned that this restriction did not fall within the restrictions identified under CEQA Guidelines Section 15155(f)(3) (i.e. “drought, salt-water intrusion, regulatory or contractual curtailments.”) The Court also reasoned “the place of use restrictions do not reduce the overall volume of water; they merely limit the areas within American Canyon that can receive that water.”
Finally, Petitioner alleged the WSA was inadequate for failing to address monthly curtailment during drought conditions in lieu of an annual analysis and “simultaneous curtailment” from the City’s different water providers. The Court rejected the first argument, explaining that nothing under CEQA or the water code mandated monthly analyses and that courts “cannot interpret the regulation to impose procedural or substantive requirements beyond those explicitly stated,” consistent with Pub. Res. Code §21083.1. The Court found the second argument meritless because the “EIR also discusses the possibility that water from either source might be curtailed, and supply reductions in Vallejo could lead to proportionate reductions.”
The Broader Trend
We’re seeing similar arguments being rejected by other courts, including one of the firm’s recent superior court wins defending the City of Seaside’s General Plan update and water supply analysis in Center for Biological Diversity v. City of Seaside (2025, Monterey Superior Court Case No. 24CV002483 [Rejecting the argument that General Plan EIR’s water supply analysis failed to discuss CBD’s Settlement Agreement with the Water Supplier which purported to limit “groundwater-sourced water supply” in the absence of developing new water supplies.])
The Bottom Line
These decisions confirm that agencies have meaningful flexibility in how they analyze water supply reliability under CEQA, so long as their conclusions are grounded in historical delivery data and a reasoned discussion of curtailment risk.