In City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon (Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 14, 2026, No. C102070) 2026 WL 100754, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a CEQA and Water Code challenge to the City of American Canyon’s certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) for the Giovannioni Logistics Center.

This published decision represents a strong result for RMM client, Buzz Oates LLC, confirming that the project’s environmental review and water supply analysis were legally sound and allowing the Giovannioni Logistics Center to move forward. The outcome reflects the effective defense of the EIR by RMM attorneys James Moose and Christina Berglund.

Key Takeaways

• Once incorporated into and certified with EIR, a water supply assessment is justiciable.
• Lower historical water purchases do not make EIR speculative absent evidence of actual supply or deliverability constraints.

Background

The project involves developing a 2.4-million-square-foot warehouse complex on industrially zoned land in American Canyon. Once operational, the project is expected to require approximately 23.9 acre-feet per year of potable water—an amount the EIR characterized as modest relative to citywide demand. American Canyon relies primarily on the State Water Project, supplemented by water purchased from the City of Vallejo pursuant to a 1996 agreement. Vallejo also holds an appropriative water right under License 7848.

Vallejo challenged the EIR’s water supply assessment under CEQA and Water Code sections 10910 and 10911, arguing that the analysis overstated water availability and failed to address several asserted constraints. The trial court denied the petition. Vallejo appealed.

Appellate Decision

CEQA Claims

The Court of Appeal rejected each of Vallejo’s CEQA claims, emphasizing that CEQA requires a reasoned analysis of water availability—not certainty, perfection, or exhaustive detail.

• Authorized vs. actual water purchases. Vallejo argued that the EIR was misleading because it relied on American Canyon’s contractual entitlement to purchase water rather than the lesser amount it historically purchased. The court disagreed, explaining that the record contained no evidence showing that the difference reflected supply constraints, rather than economic decisions by American Canyon. Critically, the court noted that the EIR properly relied on American Canyon’s urban water management plan, which explained that while Vallejo treated water is a reliable source, American Canyon typically purchases less than its full contractual allotment because of its higher costs, not because the water is unavailable.
• Place of use restrictions. Vallejo also contended the EIR was deficient for failing to discuss place-of-use restrictions associated with License 7848 water. The court acknowledged that such restrictions could, in a narrow sense, affect where the water may be used, but emphasized that they did not reduce the overall volume of water available to the citywide system. Even assuming disclosure might have been appropriate, the court held Vallejo failed to show prejudice—because the EIR evaluated water supply and demand on a citywide basis and substantial evidence supported its conclusion that supplies were sufficient under all modeled scenarios.
• Curtailment analysis. Vallejo argued the EIR should have analyzed water availability on a monthly basis and addressed the risk of “simultaneous curtailment” affecting multiple imported sources. The court rejected both arguments. CEQA Guidelines section 15155 requires consideration of drought and curtailment risks but does not mandate monthly projections. The court also found the EIR adequately disclosed that American Canyon’s imported supplies share common infrastructure and hydrologic constraints and described contingency planning for dry years.
• Alternative water sources. Vallejo’s argument that the EIR was required to analyze alternative water sources failed for two reasons. First, the issue was not preserved in the trial court. Second, an alternative analysis is required only when a lead agency cannot determine that sufficient water will be available—a finding American Canyon never made.
• Related contract litigation. Finally, Vallejo argued the EIR should have disclosed separate litigation over the 1996 agreement. The court declined to find error, noting that the record contained no information about the litigation’s substance or potential effect on water availability. Without such evidence, Vallejo could not demonstrate that the omission was material or prejudicial.

Water Code Claims

The court also rejected Vallejo’s claims under Water Code sections 10910 and 10911. Although water supply assessments are often treated as preliminary informational documents, the court held Vallejo’s claims were justiciable because the assessment had been incorporated into and certified in the EIR.

On the merits, the court concluded the assessment adequately identified relevant water supply contracts and relied on American Canyon’s urban water management plan to describe historical deliveries. The Water Code does not require the level of detail Vallejo sought, nor does it require a contingency plan unless the agency determines supplies will be insufficient—which American Canyon did not.

– Adam Nir