U.S. air carriers failed Wednesday to block an EU law charging airlines flying to Europe for their carbon pollution, yielding to a sweeping measure intended to curb climate-changing emissions from international aviation.

The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg dismissed arguments that imposing the European Union's cap-and-trade program on flights to and from European airports infringes on national sovereignty or violates international aviation treaties.

The lawsuit was brought by U.S. and Canadian airlines acting through the industry trade organization Airlines for America, but the protest was supported by China, India and other countries with international carriers.

The U.S. airlines said the regulation was tantamount to "an exorbitant tax," but the EU said the added costs would amount to a few dollars per ticket and would open the way for efficient airlines to make money rather than lose.

The carbon trading program, due to go into effect Jan. 1, is one of the widest-reaching measures adopted by any country or regional bloc to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for climate change. It aims to make airlines accountable for their carbon emissions, which contribute to global warming.

A federal appeals court is blocking an Environmental Protection Agency rule designed to reduce pollution at cement plants.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington agreed with cement makers that the EPA did not properly draft the rule governing storage of material used in the manufacturing process. The judges ordered the agency to rewrite the 2010 regulation and urged them to do so quickly.

Other rules affecting pollutants in the cement making process were left in place by the judges.

Congress also had been considering a challenge to the rule. More than 100 lawmakers with plants in their districts pushed the House to pass a bill Oct. 6 that would have forced the EPA to rewrite the measure and give manufacturers years to comply.

A vanishing lake figures large in a court battle over how Southern California gets it water, a high-stakes dispute with consequences that could ripple throughout the western United States.

A California appeals court is considering whether to overturn a landmark 2003 agreement that created the nation's largest farm-to-city water transfer and set new rules for dividing the state's share of the Colorado River. A three-judge panel of the 3rd Appellate District in Sacramento will hear arguments Monday and is expected to rule within three months.

Farmers and environmentalists involved in the lawsuit argue the pact is deeply flawed, while California water agencies say it is critical to keeping an uneasy peace on the river. The court has given each side 45 minutes to make its case and asked lawyers to focus on whether the state of California violated its constitution by essentially writing a blank check to restore the shrinking Salton Sea.

California long used more of the Colorado River than it was granted under agreements with Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and Mexico. Its overindulgence was never a big problem until Sunbelt cities like Phoenix witnessed explosive growth and other states clamored for their full share. Drought only exacerbated tensions.

A California county is drafting a solar power law designed to protect agriculture.
The Yolo County ordinance would require solar project applicants to prove there is no available non-prime farmland nearby and would require developers to set aside land for farming and wildlife.

The Sacramento Bee says a vote on the ordinance could come as early as September.

Big solar projects are blossoming in California because of a new state law requiring utilities to obtain 33 percent of their power from renewable sources. The deadline for hitting the 33 percent mark is 2020.

Plans for a solar law come as developers Angelo Tsakopoulos and Phil Angelides propose rows of metal and concrete solar panels on 688 acres of rice-growing land in Yolo County near Interstate 80 and the Yolo Causeway.

A federal appeals panel handed Georgia a victory Tuesday by finding metro Atlanta can legally tap a reservoir that provides water to roughly 3 million of its residents and tossed aside a lower court order that would have severely restricted access to that water starting next summer.

The decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a nearly two-year-old ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson, who found that metro Atlanta had little legal authority to take water from Lake Lanier on the Chattahoochee River. In a ruling that Magnuson acknowledged was "draconian," he said water withdrawals must be reduced starting in July 2012 to levels last seen in the 1970s unless the political leaders of Alabama, Georgia and Florida struck a deal.

Georgia had argued that Congress meant for the project to provide Atlanta with water and accused Magnuson of failing to consider the harm his order would cause. Alabama and Florida, which also rely on the Chattahoochee, said the dam was never intended as a major water supply and that usage by ever-growing Atlanta was harming communities and endangered wildlife downstream.

In their unanimous ruling, the three-judge appeals panel gave the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which runs the dam, one year to re-evaluate a request from Georgia for more water with the legal guidance that water supply is one of several permissible uses of the reservoir.

The Obama administration and leading power companies are going before the Supreme Court in an effort to block a global warming lawsuit aimed at forcing cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

The justices are hearing arguments Tuesday in the court's second climate change case in four years. A half-dozen states, New York City and three land trusts sued four private utilities and the Tennessee Valley Authority over emissions of carbon dioxide from plants in 20 states. The lawsuit says carbon dioxide, which is produced when coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels burn, is one of the chief causes of global warming.

The administration and the companies say federal courts should not set environmental policy. The administration says the Environmental Protection Agency is developing regulations that would accomplish what the states are seeking.

A coalition of environmental and Native American groups on Monday sued the California Department of Fish and Game over permits issued to build 21,000 homes on Los Angeles County's last major tract of undeveloped land.

The coalition, which filed the suit in San Francisco County Superior Court, alleges that fish and game officials violated state environmental codes in granting permits Dec. 3 for the controversial Newhall Ranch development.

"It is appalling that the Department of Fish and Game, the trustee for all of California's wildlife, approved ecological destruction on this scale," said John Buse, a senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs. "Far less damaging options were available, but the department brushed them aside."

Fish and Game spokesman Andrew Hughan said he could not comment because the department has not yet seen the lawsuit, but in an earlier statement department officials said the approved plan will preserve 70 percent of the nearly 14,000-acre area as natural open space.

That space includes preserves to protect 76 percent of the rare San Fernando Valley spineflower and 93 percent of the Santa Clara River corridor.

Developers must also establish a $6 million endowment for preservation efforts.

"Hundreds of people, including biologists, botanists, hydrologists and other scientists, worked together to shape this biologically innovative project, and the end result ensures the protection of this site's unique natural resources," said Ed Pert, South Coast regional manager.