Opinion
No. C093153.
10-19-2021
In re ALEX MARTI on Habeas Corpus.
[Modification of opinion (69 Cal. App. 5th 170 [___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___]), upon denial of rehearing.]
THE COURT.—It is ordered that the published opinion filed herein on September 22, 2021, be modified as follows:
1) On page 6, at the end of the first sentence of the first paragraph [69 Cal.App. 5th 181, advance report, 1st par, line 2], add the words "for oral argument and decision," so that the sentence reads:
We have consolidated three appeals against respondent Department of Water Resources (DWR) for oral argument and decision.
2) On page 15 [69 Cal.App. 5th 189, advance report, heading and 2d par.], delete the heading "Biological Diversity's Petition and Complaint" and the first paragraph below that heading.
3) In the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 30 [69 Cal.App. 5th 201, advance report, 1st full par., line 1], replace the word "validated" with the word "authorized," so that the sentence reads:
As in the trial court, Central Delta concedes the contracts were authorized, but presents a novel, convoluted argument that the complaint was timely filed.
4) At the end of the first paragraph on page 48 [69 Cal.App. 5th 214, advance report, 3d par., line 6], after the sentence ending "DWR failed to approve or reject the Kern Water Bank transfer," add as footnote No. 7 the following footnote, which will require renumbering of all subsequent
Food Safety contends that DWR improperly relied on a prior approval of the Kern Water Bank transfer prior to completion of the Revised EIR in violation of CEQA. We agree with DWR that its decision to continue use and operation of the Kern Water Bank was in compliance with the 2014 Writ. As the trial court ruled: "DWR has done precisely what the 2014 Writ required by determining to `carry out the proposed project by continuing to the use and operation of the [Kern Water Bank] by [Kern Water Bank Authority].' DWR's project decision was made in conformance with the court's Writ. Thus, the court rejects Petitioners' argument that it was not a valid project `approval.'"
There is no change in judgment.
The petition for rehearing filed in case Nos. C078249 and C086215 is denied.