California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Board

The trial court held that the removal from criteria area designation was a CEQA project but that the natural resource and environment exemptions applied because the phase 9 property would be conserved. The appellate court affirmed

The trial court held that the covenants were not a statutory conservation easement because neither WRS nor the Federers were 'a charitable corporation whose purposes include conservation of land or water areas,' as required by the enabling statute.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's interpretation of the ordinance, finding that counting the acreage subject to the conservation easement as developable was neither 'realistic' nor 'feasible,' as required by the statute.

The appellate court affirmed, holding that the purpose and physical boundaries of the easements were unambiguous, and therefore declined to look at the extrinsic evidence. The court further held that the holder of the easement has the right to prohibit structures and objects

The Court held that neither neighbors nor the general public has standing to enforce a conservation easement under the New Hampshire conservation easement enabling statute.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court in holding that the posting requirement was a covenant, and not a condition subsequent, of the easement, and therefore the failure to comply with this requirement was not grounds for rescission.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is issuing two final policies that will guide its review of the potential impacts of land and water development projects on America’s wildlife and their habitats.

The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court's decision that the easement was violated by vegetation removal and miscellaneous structures was backed by substantial evidence.

The requirements of the Subdivision Map Act are not applicable to a corporation’s grant of a conservation easement under which the corporation will maintain ownership and possession of the property subject to the easement.

The trial court found that the option language was ambiguous, and that extrinsic evidence supported the conclusion that the parties did not intend that the option provision would prohibit FLT's conveyance of a conservation easement. Appellate court affirmed.