A California Superior Court judge has rejected a challenge by environmental groups to the proposed Sites Reservoir in California’s Sacramento Valley.
The proposed Sites Reservoir site, located northwest of Sacramento, CA, will hold up to 1.5 million acre-feet (an acre-foot is 325,851 gallons) of water by capturing storm-related runoff and a portion of storm-related flood water north of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Judge Samuel T. McAdam of the Yolo County Superior Court ruled against Friends of the River, the Center for Biological Diversity and others who asserted the approval of the final environmental impact report (FEIR) failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The groups filed a writ of mandate in December 2023, contending the Sites Project Authority did not use a correct environmental baseline and instead relied on a 2019 Biological Opinion and 2018 Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan. They further asserted the FEIR didn’t consider feasible alternatives, especially those reducing water diversions from the Sacramento River, aligning with the best available science for protecting native fish and wildlife populations.
McAdam said because the environmental groups were challenging the factual information the authority used to create an environmental baseline, the court was required to conduct a substantial review. McAdam said some cases cited by environmental groups did not support their argument and that they better supported the defendants as they properly used their discretion not to use uncertain updates in the biological opinion and water quality control plan.
The decision stated the authority considered a range of alternatives during the process of performing environmental impact reports.
“The record is replete with evidence that the authority extensively evaluated and reviewed several different sizes and alternative operational criteria over the course of its CEQA review of the project,” McAdam wrote.
Jerry Brown, executive director of the Sites Project Authority, lauded the decision, saying in a statement that the court recognized the extensive work the authority had conducted during the environmental process and the six years of public outreach.
Fritz Durst, chair of the authority, said the need for water is significant for people, farms and the environment, noting, “We have no time to waste.”
The authority continued that while the decision was an important step, there are “several milestones to achieve” before construction is anticipated to begin in 2026.
The project is estimated to cost $4.5 billion and has received $233.7 million in federal contributions. California has funded over $46 million for the project from early funding and is eligible for another $875.4 million from Proposition 1 bonds.
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) also praised the court’s decision, noting it occurred within the 270 days courts must make on challenges to CEQA as required by a bill he signed.
“California needs more water storage, and we have no time to waste—projects like the Sites Reservoir will capture rain and snow runoff to supply millions of homes with clean drinking water,” Newsom said in a statement. “We’re approaching this work with urgency, everything from water storage to clean energy and transportation projects.”
However, the environmental groups were dissatisfied with the court’s decision, asserting the FEIR has flaws as it doesn’t account for harm and liabilities.
“An enormous reservoir with enormous consequences should be planned with care, so it’s extremely disappointing that this damaging project is so rushed,” Frances Tinney, attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. “We face a serious extinction crisis and I fear Sites will put an end to the vulnerable fish and wildlife that make the Sacramento River ecosystem one-of-a-kind.”
According to the Sacramento Bee, environmental groups have appealed the decision, stating they wish the environmental impacts were given due consideration.
“There are still numerous hurdles before the Sites Reservoir and that’s because the state’s strong environmental laws demand a thorough review for potentially damaging projects,” said John Buse, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity.— Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
