Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> California Appellate Report

Federal Judiciary

: California Appellate Report

City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (Cal. Ct. App. - Jan. 20, 2011)

By Shaun Martin

Good catch by the Court of Appeal.  Its initial opinion, read:  "The record reflects Regional Board's basin plan also took into considered 'potential' beneficial uses of water in setting water quality objectives."  Should be "consideration."  Editing error.  Nice correction.

But the same amendment that made that correction created another one.  The second change was to add:  "See also [sect.] 13240 (requiring basin plans 'shall be periodically reviewed and may by revised')."  Oops.  That should be "may be" revised, not "may by."

Plus, I know we like the first word after a parenthetical to end in "-ing".  But I'd either omit that first word entirely -- the statute speaks for itself -- or say "(requiring basin plans to "be periodically reviewed and may be revised")."  Makes more sense.

Still, I like the error correction.  Which I have to do constantly in my own work as well.

Full post as published by California Appellate Report on January 20, 2011 (boomark / email).