Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

California's Annual Pesticide Registration Program Complied
with the California Environmental Quality Act

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 393 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006), the California Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the superior court, which had denied an environmental group's petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief against the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (Department). The environmental group alleged that the Department violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by failing to review a particular pesticide registration annually. The court held that the Department's pesticide registration renewal procedure complied with CEQA.

Background

The Department regulated the manufacture, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides in California through a pesticide registration regime. Id. at 396. An environmental group challenged the Department's block of pesticide registration decisions for 2002 by filing a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief with the Superior Court of Sacramento County. Id. The Department demurred to group's mandamus claims. Id. The court sustained the Department's demurrers, holding that the group's claims were moot and untimely. Id. Additionally, the court held that the "Department complied with its regulations in renewing and refusing to reevaluate the pesticide registrations" and "met the requirements for a CEQA-certified program." Id. The environmental group appealed. Id.

Arguments

On appeal, the environmental group argued that: (1) the Department abused its discretion in renewing without reevaluation pesticides contaminating amphibians and their habitat in the Sierra Nevada; (2) the Department's procedure violated CEQA and the Department's regulations; (3) the court erred in finding the Department's procedure lawful; (4) the court erred in finding its mandamus claims moot; and (5) the court should have reached the merits of the mandamus claims. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The pesticide renewal process involved the application of California Code of Regulations § 6215, which states:

(a) Each registrant shall submit with each renewal application a statement, signed by an authorized official . . . under penalty of perjury, that, prior to filing the renewal application the registrant has, to the best of the applicant's knowledge based upon all information available to the applicant, complied with the provisions of § 6210, (b) Each renewal shall be issued within 60 days after the [Department] receives an accurate and complete renewal application unless the [Department] takes action pursuant to §§ 12816, 12825, or 12827 of the Food and Agricultural Code, (c) The [Department] shall, when renewing a pesticide registration without a reevaluation, make a written finding that he or she has not received sufficient information necessitating reevaluation pursuant to §§ 6220, 6221.
Id. at 403.

The environmental group argued that the Department's renewing of the 2002 block of pesticide registrations within the 60-day period did not comply with § 6215 because it renewed them without responding to public comments. Id. However, the court held that § 6215(b), which established the 60-day renewal period, did not mention public comment as a possible investigation and subsequent reevaluation trigger. Id. Essentially, the section "allows for a timely annual renewal process while soliciting information that may lead to future reevaluation." Id. at 404. Because the reevaluation process involved the evaluation of complicated scientific data, the court held that the Department needed flexibility to review the evidence without an arbitrary, abbreviated time limit. Id. The court "discern[ed] nothing in the legislative scheme that require[d] the Department to invite public comment, and to consider and respond to comments within the 60-day period allowed for consideration and renewal of applications." Id. at 404.

The environmental group also argued that the Department's pesticide registration renewal procedure violated CEQA, and that the trial court erred in finding that CEQA did not apply to registration renewal. Id. After reviewing the trial court's reasoning, the instant court held that the trial court reached the correct conclusion. Id. The court reasoned that the Department's compliance with applicable statutes and regulations constituted CEQA compliance. Id. at 405.

Additionally, the group argued that the trial court erred by dismissing its mandamus claims as moot. Id. at 406. The court stated, "[a] case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief." Id. at 406. However, "cases are not moot when they present questions that are capable of repetition, yet evade review." Id. In the instant case, because of the annual nature of the pesticide renewal program, rendering the matter before the court as moot would create an impossible burden for the group to challenge the Department's decisions. Id. Therefore, the court held that the trial court erred in finding the group's mandamus claims moot.

Finally, the environmental group argued, "in deciding to renew registrations without initiating reevaluations[,] the Department abused its discretion by applying an incorrect evidentiary standard." Id. at 407. The instant court disagreed with the group for the following two reasons: (1) the Department's factual conclusions were supported by substantial evidence, and (2) the Department's conclusions were premised on a correct interpretation of the relevant legal standard. Id. at 409. Therefore, the court held that trial court did not abuse its discretion.

The case was decided on February 15, 2006.