Case Law Details
M. Westland, LLC v. Caltrans
Project Description:
The project would widen, install tolled express lanes, and make other improvements to 16 miles of Interstate 405 in Orange County, California. The project would be undertaken by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Caltrans issued an EIS for the project in 2015. (Caltrans had assumed the Federal Highway Administration’s responsibilities as the federal lead agency under the NEPA assignment program.)
2020 WL 1652551
2020 WL 1652551
U.S. District Court – California
02/12/2020
I-405 Improvement Project
Highway
Case Summary
The EIS concluded that the project would be no adverse effects on drainage patterns because the Caltrans and OCTA would modify or add stormwater drainage and retention facilities to ensure they had sufficient capacity to accommodate runoff generated by the project. The project required modifying an existing drainage system in the right-of-way adjacent to the plaintiffs’ mobile home park. After they issued the EIS, Caltrans and OCTA proposed to create a stormwater basin adjacent to the mobile home park. In response to concerns raised by the plaintiffs about flooding at the mobile home park, Caltrans and OCTA agreed to revise their drainage plans and shared draft plans with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in August 2019, alleging that Caltrans should have prepared a supplemental EIS analyzing the changes to the drainage system. At the time the lawsuit was filed, Caltrans had not yet approved the changes or determined whether they warranted a supplemental EIS. The court dismissed the case because the plaintiffs had not challenged a final agency action.
Key Holdings
Ripeness
The court dismissed the case because the controversy was not yet ripe for judicial review. Cases brought under the Administrative Procedure Act must challenge a final agency action. Here, Caltrans was still reviewing the proposed design changes and had not yet made a final decision to approve them. Caltrans also had not yet decided whether to implement the design changes without preparing a supplemental EIS. Thus, there was no final agency action for the court to review. The court left open the possibility that the plaintiffs could re-file their lawsuit if and when Caltrans approved the design changes and made a determination whether to prepare a supplemental EIS.
File Attachment