Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1674058
 


 



Preservation as Mitigation Under CEQA: Ho Hum or Uh-Oh?


Jessica Owley


State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo - Law School

David C. Levy


Morrison and Foerster

June 1, 2005

Environmental Law News, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 18, 2005

Abstract:     
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 In some unpublished decisions where courts addressed the issue head on, they reached the opposite decisions.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.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 7

Keywords: CEQA, mitigation, preservation, conservation easements, agricultural easements

JEL Classification: K11, K32

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: October 12, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Owley, Jessica and Levy, David C., Preservation as Mitigation Under CEQA: Ho Hum or Uh-Oh? (June 1, 2005). Environmental Law News, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 18, 2005 . Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1674058

Contact Information

Jessica Owley (Contact Author)
State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo - Law School ( email )
School of Law
528 O'Brian Hall
Buffalo, NY 14260-1100
United States
716-645-8182 (Phone)
716-645-2064 (Fax)

David C. Levy
Morrison and Foerster
San Fransisco, CA
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 528
Downloads: 65
Download Rank: 211,765

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.328 seconds