Business as usual in California politics always includes at least one squabble over the California Environmental Quality Act, a law signed 56 years ago by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan.
As the Legislature grinds toward the end of its session and a Nov. 3 election approaches, we have two such political duels over CEQA, one in legislation and the other in a ballot measure. The underlying issue in both, as always, is how a law whose original aim was minimizing adverse environmental impacts will be applied. As usual, they pit environmental advocates against business interests.
In recent years, the CEQA debate has centered on its use — or misuse — as local governments were pressed by the state to increase housing, particularly apartments for low- and medium-income families. Project opponents, arguing that multi-family projects would change the character of their neighborhoods, often invoked CEQA. Construction unions also did as they pressured developers to use union labor.
Last year, the issue reached a climactic point when Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature enacted two bills to exempt some forms of housing from CEQA.
Although the bills, Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131, were largely seen as housing policy, the latter altered how CEQA would be applied to some non-housing projects, most notably “advanced manufacturing facilities,” with potentially broad effects.
Too broad, environmentalists complained. Almost immediately they listed the kinds of projects that could escape CEQA oversight, such as strip mining, and began pressuring Newsom and the Legislature to narrow the legislation’s application.
A year later, that narrowing is contained in SB 954. Environmental groups like it but business groups contend it will make California uncompetitive in seeking industrial investment, citing its CEQA provisions and language that would compel use of union labor by any approved project.
The California Manufacturers & Technology Association argues the bill would affect “supply chain operations and modernization of existing facilities, including upgrades that support the state’s own environmental and energy goals, at a moment when California is competing globally for manufacturing investment.”
While environmental groups say SB 131 goes too far, the California Chamber of Commerce says it didn’t go far enough in streamlining CEQA’s application. It and other business groups are taking that argument to the ballot.
If passed by voters, Proposition 45 would speed up the CEQA vetting process for projects and limit the ability of project opponents to seek judicial intervention.
“Californians have too long paid the price for bureaucratic red tape and delays, and they’re ready for solutions,” says chamber President Jennifer Barrera.
The chamber and other business groups have created the Committee to Build an Affordable California to campaign for the measure, while environmental and union advocates have a coalition named People Over Polluters.
“We strongly oppose it,” says Miguel Miguel, director of Sierra Club California. “We know that what they are really trying to do is eliminate a lot of the environmental safeguards that have existed for a long time.”
There are 14 measures on the Nov. 3 ballot, and those affecting taxation, particularly Prop. 40, a tax on billionaires, are garnering the most media attention.
But Prop. 45 is also a biggie that could draw many millions in campaign money. Its outcome will be a major milestone in the decades-long political skirmishes over CEQA.
Dan Walters’ commentary is distributed by CalMatters, a public interest journalism venture committed to explaining how California’s state Capitol works and why it matters.
