On January 14, 2026, the Third District Court of Appeal issued a published opinion upholding the City of American Canyon’s (City) environmental impact report (EIR) and accompanying water supply assessment (WSA) for the proposed Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (Project), an industrial warehouse complex to be located within City limits. Availability of water for new development is increasingly a focus of challenges under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). There are very few published decisions addressing the adequacy of WSAs; the decision provides helpful direction to lead agencies regarding the level of detail required to satisfy CEQA and the Water Code.
When a proposed development is subject to CEQA, and it is also a “project” within the meaning of Water Code section 10912, a WSA is required. (Wat. Code, §§ 10910, subd. (b), 10910‑10915.) The WSA is intended to assist local governments in making the discretionary decision of whether to approve a proposed development project. The water supply assessment must be included in any CEQA document prepared for the project. (Wat. Code, § 10911, subd. (b).)
In this case, the Project triggered the need for a WSA due to its footprint, even though its potable water use was projected to be just 23 acre-feet per year. Following CEQA review, the Project came before the City for approval in early 2023. Finding that sufficient water supplies existed to serve the modest potable water needs of the Project, even in dry years, the City certified the EIR, along with the WSA, and approved the Project.
The City of Vallejo (Vallejo) filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the City’s certification of the EIR and Project approval, arguing the EIR failed to comply with water supply disclosures required by CEQA and the Water Code. The Sacramento Superior Court sided with the City and denied Vallejo’s petition in its entirety.
Vallejo appealed. In City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon (Third Appellate District Case No. C102070) the Court of Appeal considered whether the City prejudicially abused its discretion in certifying the EIR and approving the Project in light of Vallejo’s arguments that the City should have included additional information in the EIR and WSA regarding the water supplied to the City from Vallejo. Relying on the principles for evaluating an EIR’s “analytical adequacy” identified in the California Supreme Court decision of Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 433 (Vineyard) and the related standards incorporated into CEQA Guidelines section 15155, the appellate court reaffirmed that an EIR is not required to demonstrate that a project “ ‘is definitely assured water,’ ” but rather that an EIR need only show that water is “reasonably likely to be available from an identified source.” Accordingly, the Court of Appeal found that additional information Vallejo argued should have been included in the EIR and WSA – including more specific details regarding water purchases by the City from Vallejo, monthly (as opposed to annual) curtailment projections, place of use restrictions in Vallejo’s water rights that were not relevant to the Project’s water use, and a water supply contract dispute between Vallejo and the City that would not change the availability of water for the Project – was not necessary to informed decision making or informed public participation. The court made it clear that an EIR’s alleged omission of desirable, or even helpful, information that is not required by law is, ultimately, “harmless.”
Somach Simmons & Dunn represented the City of American Canyon in the trial court and appellate proceedings. For inquiries or additional information, please contact:
Somach Simmons & Dunn provides the information in its Environmental Law & Policy Alerts and on its website for informational purposes only. This general information is not a substitute for legal advice, and users should consult with legal counsel for specific advice. In addition, using this information or sending electronic mail to Somach Simmons & Dunn or its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship with Somach Simmons & Dunn.
Read more news and alerts »
Somach Simmons & Dunn | Attorneys at Law
