County’s Public Trust Analysis for New Groundwater Well Permitting Regime Upheld but CEQA Exemption Determination Overturned
A court of appeal has ruled that Sonoma County’s amended groundwater well permitting ordinance meets public trust requirements but does not qualify for the CEQA exemptions upon which the County relied. Russian Riverkeeper v. County of Sonoma, 122 Cal.App.5th 382 (2026).
Background
The ordinance amendments arose from the decision in Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Board, 29 Cal.App.5th 844 (2018), which held that California law imposes a fiduciary duty on counties, as “subdivisions of the state,” to consider the public trust in permitting groundwater wells that affect navigable waterways.
Under the public trust, the sovereign owns all of its navigable waterways and the lands lying beneath them “as trustee of a public trust for the benefit of the people.” In California, the doctrine requires the state “to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water resources, and to protect public trust uses whenever feasible.”
In 2022, Sonoma County began work to amend its groundwater well permitting ordinance because the ordinance did not explicitly consider impacts to public trust resources—most notably, the main stem of the Russian River—in the issuance of those permits. Following extensive technical study of potential impacts of groundwater wells on the Russian River, as well as extensive public outreach, in 2023, the County amended its ordinance. The ordinance created a newly defined “Public Trust Review Area,” where groundwater pumping could affect navigable waters and salmonid habitats, to help determine which well applications would receive discretionary public-trust review and which would remain subject to ministerial review.
Environmental organizations sued, claiming that (1) the ordinance violated the public trust doctrine and (2) the CEQA exemptions the County relied upon did not apply. The superior court agreed with both claims. The court of appeal, however, citing the “distinct burdens of proof and standards of review applicable to each claim,” rejected the organizations’ public trust claim while upholding their CEQA claim.
Public Trust Analysis
The County first argued that the Environmental Law Foundation case was wrongly decided and that only state agencies, not counties, were responsible for public trust compliance. The court rejected that argument.
The court agreed, however, with the County’s second argument, that the petitioners had failed to show that the amendment of the well permit ordinance was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. The public trust doctrine did not require the County to protect public trust resources under every conceivable circumstance. The record showed that the County took the public trust into account, considered conflicting policy concerns, and “fashioned a compromise to address the practical realities” of groundwater well permitting.
CEQA Analysis
Rather than prepare an environmental impact report or negative declaration to study potential environmental impacts of its proposed amendments to the well permitting ordinance, the County relied on the Class 7 and Class 8 categorical exemptions, as well as CEQA’s “common sense” exemption. In contrast to the highly deferential review of the public-trust claim, the court reviewed de novo whether the ordinance fell within these exemptions and applied the substantial evidence test to the County’s supporting factual determinations.
The Class 7 and Class 8 exemptions apply to actions taken “to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource” or “the environment.” The court first determined, as a matter of law, that because the amended ordinance both strengthened and weakened the ordinance’s existing environmental protections, it did not fall within the scope of the Class 7 or Class 8 exemptions.
The court went on to conclude that even if the Class 7 or Class 8 exemptions were potentially applicable, substantial evidence did not support the County’s reliance on those exemptions. Treating the County’s intent in adopting the amendments as irrelevant, the court reviewed the record and noted that approximately 95% of well applications would remain subject to ministerial review. It therefore found it “speculative” to assume the amendments would result in any permit denials or fewer wells and concluded that no substantial evidence supported the County’s “anticipation” that conservation measures added to the ordinance would decrease net groundwater use in the County.
CEQA’s common sense exemption applies where “there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” Relying on the same analysis of the record it used to reject the applicability of the Class 7 and 8 exemptions, the court concluded there was no substantial evidence supporting the County’s determination that the revised ordinance raised “no possibility” of a significant effect on the environment because the record did not support the assumption that the amendments would result in fewer wells or reduced groundwater use.
Conclusion
The court of appeal’s split decision reflects the sharply different standards of judicial review of quasi-legislative determinations and CEQA exemption determinations. In reviewing the public-trust challenge, the court placed the burden on the challengers to show that the ordinance was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. As for CEQA, however, the court reviewed de novo whether the claimed exemptions applied and reviewed the County’s supporting factual determinations for substantial evidence. The case also reinforces the rule that CEQA exemptions are to be narrowly construed, as illustrated by the California Supreme Court case decided earlier in the summer, Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation.
