For the benefit of my understanding, please explain the uneven application of EIR laws by the state in requiring an EIR for this type of work by some agencies, but not by others.

It seems to me that such a requirement attached to some obscure legislative act specific to a particular entity, may well subvert the intent and compromises built in to the environmental laws as they were originally agreed to(when the main subject was the environment).

If so, then it is an effectively sneaky way to take an original good compromise and carry it out through the back door to the point of extremism. I wouldn't put it past anyone in the California legislature - they've done a lot of similar sneaky stuff over the years that wasn't noticed or intended by the majority - and it utterly dismays the public when they finally hear about it - if they ever do. Most of the media keeps most of it to themselves most of the time - until it is to late - it seems!

I still say, however it came to be, that such a requirement is a glaring example of blantant extremism. It is patently silly, ineffective, and onerous; and will only waste time and money while not protecting the environment at all. Oh, I forgot; it gave another hook to the local NIMBYS to persue their own selfish interests at the expense of what may well be the greater public good.

NYMBY = "The public be damned". Commodore Vanderbilt has been one-upped!

Too Bad - This sort of thing is happening in all aspects of California government, even affecting our personal lives. The great silent majority had better wake up!