The California Environmental Quality Act is one of the most consequential and controversial laws on the books.
CEQA, which dates to the 1970s, requires state and local agencies to consider the environmental effects of many proposed projects before approving them. If a project could cause significant environmental harm that can’t easily be avoided, it undergoes a more detailed environmental review to examine its potential effects and alternatives.
Backers say CEQA is a vital tool for environmental review and gives the community a voice in development. But critics say CEQA is too often used to slow down needed housing and has been exploited as a bureaucratic weapon.
Enter Proposition 45.
The basics
Proposition 45 would impose stricter deadlines on environmental reviews, permits and court challenges. Agencies would have to spell out application requirements up-front and could not make repeated requests for more information or project changes. The measure caps public comment periods, while current law only sets minimum lengths. It also limits what courts may consider in CEQA lawsuits.
The impact
The law clearly would change the CEQA process; whether that would be for better or worse is the subject of debate. Backers say it would make the process faster and easier. Critics say it would roll back important environmental protections.
Dig deeper
The fight over Proposition 45 comes as California struggles to build enough housing to meet demand, causing prices to skyrocket. Housing prices, polls show, are a major issue for California voters.
But the proposition also is touching on another hot-button issue: data centers. Supporters and foes are battling over whether the measure would make it easier to build more of those controversial facilities.
More reading
California’s Prop. 45 aims to speed construction projects. Opponents say data centers will benefit (L.A. Times)
CEQA overhaul outrages environmentalists (L.A. Times)
The history of CEQA and its future (L.A. Times)
Could Embracing Sprawl Ease California’s Housing Crunch? (New York Times)
