Friends of Mammoth v. Mono County Board of Supervisors

The first major CEQA case, Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, reached the Supreme Court in 1972. The issue in that case––whether or not CEQA applies only to public works projects or also to private projects that required a discretionary governmental approval––was obviously important. However, of enduring importance to the statute has been the tour de force represented by Justice Mosk’s opinion. In it, he recognized the constant threats to the environment from a single-minded focus on the economy and the unique importance of protecting the environment. Consequently, Friends of Mammoth declared that CEQA must be interpreted “to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment…” 

It is sometimes the case that, when the Supreme Court rules, it takes a certain amount of repetition before the lower courts realize that the Court meant what it said. This was true when, shortly after Friends of Mammoth, the Court accepted review of No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles. In No Oil, the Court was confronted by a shabby evasion of CEQA, where the city council––without having the analysis of an EIR before it––made the essentially political decision that an oil drilling project would not have a significant impact on the environment. The Supreme Court, however, restated the principles that it had declared in Friends of Mammoth and established the now well understood "fair argument" rule, namely, that an EIR must be prepared if there is a fair argument that the project would cause a significant impact on the environment.

Three years later, in 1975, the Court was again compelled to stand by its ruling, in Friends of Mammoth, that CEQA should be broadly applied. In Bozung v. Local Agency Formation, the Court recognized that the annexation of property was not a mere paper exercise but the first step in a process intended to lead to development. The Court gave meaning to one of the core principles of CEQA: that the analysis of environmental issues should occur as early as possible, while there is still time to consider alternatives or mitigation measures. It ruled that an annexation was a "project" subject to the requirements of CEQA. 

It took some emphasis and some repetition by the Court; but these three early cases successfully managed to set the tone for thirty five years of interpretation and application of CEQA. Though the Court has not always ruled on the side of those who filed the CEQA case, the principles articulated in these early cases have compelled parties and courts to take the environment seriously and to take their obligations under CEQA seriously. The environment and the State of California have greatly benefited from the Court's early and insightful wisdom. 

(Written by Justice Cruz Reynoso, in Everyday Heroes Protect the Air We Breathe, the Water We Drink, and the Natural Areas We Prize)