In an August 4, 2026, decision (Russian Riverkeeper v. County of Sonoma), the California Court of Appeal determined that a county well-permitting ordinance satisfied the county’s public trust responsibilities, but that the ordinance was not exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.

Key Points

• Public trust duties are real and statewide. Every California county that issues groundwater well permits shares the state’s affirmative obligation to consider public trust impacts on navigable waters — no express legislative delegation is required.
• Public trust compliance earns strong judicial deference — if documented. Courts apply the highly deferential “arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support” standard to quasi-legislative well ordinances. A science-backed, process-driven ordinance will withstand challenge even when the challenger offers substantial evidence supporting a different approach.
• CEQA exemptions demand actual evidence — not intent. For Class 7, Class 8, and the common sense exemption, the agency bears the burden of substantial evidence that the ordinance will maintain, restore, or enhance the environment. Anticipated or projected benefits, without quantification, are legally insufficient.
• Mixed regulatory changes cannot claim Class 7/8 protection. An ordinance that simultaneously tightens some environmental protections and relaxes others falls outside the CEQA Class 7 and Class 8 categorical exemptions as a matter of law.

Background

Sonoma County relies on more than 45,000 groundwater wells and issues roughly 320 well permits annually. Following the 2018 decision in Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Board — which held that counties share the state’s public trust duties when permitting wells that affect navigable waters — Sonoma amended its well-permitting ordinance (Chapter 25B) in April 2023. The amendment created a science-based Public Trust Review Area (PTRA) covering approximately 19% of the county, introduced discretionary review for wells within the PTRA, and established water conservation and metering requirements. Sonoma claimed the amendments were categorically exempt from CEQA under Class 7, Class 8, and the common sense exemption. Petitioners challenged both the public trust adequacy of the amendments and the CEQA exemption claims.

Analysis

Public Trust Doctrine — Affirming County Responsibility and Judicial Deference

Declining to limit Environmental Law Foundation’s holding to Siskiyou County or to situations involving express statutory delegation, the court confirmed the state’s “supreme” authority over navigable waters. Accordingly, any California county taking action with a potential impact on public trust resources — including well permitting — carries an affirmative duty to consider and protect those resources where feasible. Counties may not evade this duty by pointing to the absence of an explicit legislative grant.

Critically, however, the court confirmed that judicial review of a county’s public trust compliance is highly deferential. Because well-permitting ordinances are quasi-legislative acts, courts presume validity and will not disturb the ordinance unless the challenger proves it is “entirely lacking in evidentiary support.” Courts will not second-guess trade-offs among competing public needs (water supply, agriculture, public health, and environmental protection), and a county is not required to adopt the most protective alternative conceivable — only one that is not arbitrary or wholly unsupported. Sonoma’s PTRA framework survived because it rested on a documented hydrological methodology, expert working groups, quantified risk assessments, and a multi-month public process.

CEQA — The Burden Is on the Agency, and Good Intentions Are Not Enough

In amending the well ordinance, the County claimed the amendments were exempt from CEQA review under the Class 7 and Class 8 categorical exemptions, which exempt certain actions taken “to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource” or “the environment.” The County also asserted that the “common sense exemption” applied, which excuses CEQA review “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.”

On the Class 7 and Class 8 exemptions, the court held as a matter of law that regulations governing private activity — rather than directly prohibiting environmentally harmful conduct — are not automatically actions “to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement” of the environment. More significantly, any ordinance that simultaneously relaxes an existing protection, however minor, cannot qualify for Class 7 or Class 8 treatment.

Even assuming the exemptions applied categorically, the court found that Sonoma’s record lacked the necessary evidentiary foundation. The facts that approximately 95% of well applications would remain subject to ministerial review, that no evidence showed any applications would actually be denied, and that Sonoma itself acknowledged it could not quantify anticipated water savings from its conservation measures all combined to defeat the exemption claims. An agency’s stated intent to protect the environment is legally irrelevant to the CEQA exemption analysis; what matters is whether the record contains objective, quantified evidence that the ordinance will actually deliver environmental protection.

The common sense exemption fared no better. Because the amendments could not guarantee fewer wells or measurably reduced water use, the court found it impossible to say, “with certainty,” that there was “no possibility” of a significant environmental effect — the demanding standard the exemption requires.

Bottom Line

For California counties (or potentially other agencies) amending well-permitting ordinances: build a thorough, science-based public trust record and you will likely prevail on that claim; but do not assume a CEQA exemption will follow. Counties that proceed without adequate CEQA review risk having their ordinances set aside.