The only book that covers the entire field of California environmental, land use, and natural resources law in a concise, user-friendly format. Authors Herson and Lucks have now thoroughly updated and expanded the first edition, includingSignificant updates to federal and state environmental law that occurred between 2008 and late 2016.An additional major chapter on international, national and state climate change law and policy.This book was written to serve the needs of planners, project applicants, developers, landowners, regulatory agency staff, consultants, attorneys, environmental managers, interested citizens, and students with a survey of California environmental law written for a general, non-technical audience.Written in non-technical language, the book comprehensively surveys the most important California environmental statutes and regulatory programs, as well as relevant federal environmental statutes and regulatory programs. It highlights landmark court cases and current policy issues, and provides practical tips on getting through the regulatory process successfully. To assist in more in-depth research, the book identifies sources of further information for each major program.

This thoroughly revised edition of the California Environmental Law and Natural Resources Handbook is an invaluable reference manual for lawyers, students, conservationists, and developers. It will take you step-by-step through statutes, programs, and stringent environmental standards in the State of California. Various agencies, departments, and boards are charged with the authority to protect the environment and natural resources. Governmental responsibility for implementing and enforcing the law is divided among many governmental bodies, including statewide agencies, special districts, regional boards, and city and county governments. The California Environmental Law and Natural Resource Handbook seeks to simplify California’s complex laws by providing a clearly written comprehensive overview of key environmental topics impacting the State of California. It includes the latest information on topics such as water quality, hazardous waste control, oil spill prevention, and wetland protections.

Many local, state, and federal environmental laws contain provisions requiring mitigation of environmental harms caused by development projects. One such law is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires environmental review of projects that have a significant impact on the environment and require discretionary approvals from public agencies. CEQA prohibits agencies from approving projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen the environmental impacts of the projects. This article reviews California cases regarding use of preservation of agricultural land as mitigation and concludes that the California courts have not yet developed a coherent position. In a few published cases, the California appellate courts appear to accept the notion that preservation can meet mitigation requirements without discussion. In some unpublished decisions where courts addressed the issue head on, they reached the opposite decisions. There are only two acceptable techniques for mitigating environmental impacts that involve the loss, destruction, or significant alteration of unique resources such as land or habitat: creation and enhancement. However, most laws (including CEQA) define mitigation more broadly to include notions of avoidance, minimization, and preservation. Such techniques should not qualify as mitigation because these strategies should be elements of project design. When beginning a project that may have significant environmental impacts, one should seek to avoid and minimize those effects from the onset. After those steps, one would mitigate the remaining impacts through creation or enhancement. Preservation as mitigation is inappropriate because it admits that destruction of the amenity will occur. It results in an overall net loss of the amenity. It may prevent future impacts, but it does not address present problems.