California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Committee for a Progressive Gilroy v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 192 Cal.App.3d 847, 237 Cal.Rptr. 723 (Cal. App. 1987):
[192 Cal.App.3d 859] For the reasons which follow, we conclude that the CEQA statute of limitations applies when review is sought on CEQA grounds. First of all, the language of the CEQA statute of limitations expressly governs when "[a]ny action or proceeding" to review the decisions of any "public agency" on ground of noncompliance with CEQA must be commenced. (Pub.Resources Code, 21167.) Under settled rules of statutory construction, "a general provision is controlled by one that is special, the latter being treated as an exception to the former. A specific provision relating to a particular subject will govern in respect to that subject, as against a general provision, although the latter, standing alone, would be broad enough to include the subject to which the more particular provision relates." (Rose v. State of California (1942) 19 Cal.2d 713, 723-724, 123 P.2d 505.) This rule applies to statutes of limitations and consequently a specific statute must take precedence over general statutes of limitation. Thus, in Walters v. County of Plumas (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 460, 469, 132 Cal.Rptr. 174, where one of the issues was whether a validating statute time limit applied to the claim that the county failed to prepare an EIR, we held that "the Environmental Quality Act of 1970 has its own statute of limitations, Public Resources Code section 21165 et seq., which being specifically applicable, takes precedence over the general provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 860." By a parity of reasoning, the CEQA statute of limitations also takes precedence over the general provisions of Water Code section 13330.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.