Page 20 - gateking051309

potentiality must be juxtaposed against what we do know for a certainty, and that is that

5
DWR is not now considering whether the transfer itself is valid.
We find the City reasonably concluded –– based on substantial evidence –– that

the 41,000 AFY of SWP water from KCWD to CLWA is reliable for planning purposes.

III. Alternative Water Sources for the Project

CWIN contends the City’s EIR/FAA for Gate King’s proposed project violates
CEQA because it fails to discuss alternative sources of water for Gate King’s proposed

project in the event that the transfer of 41,000 AFY of water from KCWD to CLWA

becomes unavailable. CWIN’s argument is based on Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th 412.

We find CWIN’s reliance on Vineyard to be unhelpful within the framework of the case

before us today.
In Vineyard, the Supreme Court addressed the adequacy of an EIR for a proposed

mixed-use project in Sacramento County which was to be built out in phases. A group of

“objectors” filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the EIR. The essential issue

presented by the objectors’ contentions was that, while the EIR may have adequately

evaluated an initial phase of development, it was nonetheless inadequate under CEQA
because its promise of future environmental analysis as each phase was to be built side-

stepped the County’s obligation to disclose and consider at the outset the environmental

impacts of supplying water to the entire planned development. (Vineyard, supra, at

p. 427.)

5
In this respect, we note Judge Chalfant’s conclusions in the CEQA case involving
the transfer itself (L.A. Super. Ct. No. BS098724): “Under contract and validation law,
the Kern water transfer contract, entered into in 1999, is valid, has been approved by
DWR, and Castaic has paid . . . for it. . . . DWR [cannot] terminate the Kern transfer
contract. Nothing in CEQA permits a public agency to void a contract. . . . [¶] Thus, in
evaluating the environmental effects of the Monterey Agreement, DWR may impose
mitigations that are legal. But it cannot invalidate the Kern transfer.”

20