In January, attorney Bill Yeates of Sacramento conducted a workshop on the California Environmental Quality Act in Sutter Creek. The workshop, sponsored by the Planning and Conservation League Foundation (PCLF) and the Sierra Nevada Alliance (SNA), was attended by elected and appointed city officials, -Foothill Conservancy members, members of the local chapter of People for the USA, the proponents of the Sutter Gold mine, and other interested citizens. No representatives of Amador County attended, even though the planning commissioners, supervisors, and planners were sent an invitation.

Yeates, assisted by independent planner Laurie Oberholzer of Nevada County, did an excellent job explaining CEQA, California’s premier environmental protection law. Yeates emphasized that CEQA requires decision makers to be fully informed of the consequences of local land-use decisions, to mitigate any negative environmental impacts, and to consider project alternatives. He also noted that, despite these standards, CEQA allows decision makers to decide that the benefits of a project overcome any unmitigable environmental impacts and approve a project after adopting what is known as a "statement of overriding considerations." The county can, for example, approve a project because it will bring jobs to the area even if the project proponents cannot mitigate its harm to the environment.

Yeates pointed out that proper CEQA compliance benefits applicants as well as the general public. If a county or city properly follows CEQA, a developer or other project proponent has much better assurance that the project can go forward. When local government is haphazard in its CEQA compliance, as has often been the case in Amador County, projects are put at risk of delay or rejection due to legal challenges. Yeates mentioned that counties can adopt their own environmental guidelines to supplement those of the state, and Oberholzer provided an example: some counties expressly prohibit project applicants from preparing their own Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs). Amador County, in contrast, has been allowing gold mine proponents to write their own EIRs regardless of the apparent conflict of interest.

In addition to discussing CEQA, Yeates also touched on other aspects of environmental and planning law, including an overview of general plan and zoning law. He pointed out that California state law protects citizens from being sued for exercising their rights to participate in the planning process. This was a particularly apt point, considering that Sutter Gold had not long before sent out a letter threatening to take legal action against the individuals it believes are backing the local lawsuit challenging the mine approval (see Winter 1998 Focus).

We’re grateful to the PCLF and SNA for bringing Yeates and Oberholzer to Sutter Creek. Local environmental activists and wise use proponents alike now have a better understanding of the this key state law.