In a small town in Kern County, a water district is using California Environmental Quality Act litigation to fight the city's plans to create more housing as required by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process. 

Whether it's something as big as the State Water Project or as small as tree stumps in Los Angeles, environmentalists aren't winning CEQA cases at the appellate level.

In an acrimonious case about water rights, an appellate court strikes down the "Weed Nine's" malicious prosecution argument.

Pismo Beach tried to charge a self-storage facility $1.1 million in water fees. The company wanted to pay $62,000. Guess who won in court?

Federal agency pre-empts actual licensing of hydroelectric system, but CEQA still applies to some state actions.

Appellate court rules that 2018 reduction in water supply was done under a set of 2010 leases between the city's Department of Water & Power and leasing ranches in Mono County.

When it doesn't allow the environmental impact report to analyze anything except the project that was proposed -- in this case, a Crystal Geyser bottling plant near Mount Shasta.

In the latest skirmish over Los Padres Del Mar -- 10 years after the city approved the project for the second time -- an appellate court has ruled that Pismo and the developer do not have to pay LAFCO's attorneys fees.

Limited by a ban on water hookups, the tourist city recycles commercial and industrial land for workforce housing units.