With the midterm elections just over two months away, critics of Proposition 45 – which would speed up environmental reviews for the construction of “essential” housing, infrastructure and clean energy projects – warn the measure would dismantle environmental safeguards and increase costs for state and local governments.
Sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, Prop 45 would overhaul the longstanding California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which governs the review of the potential environmental impacts of proposed construction projects. If passed, the measure would impose a 365-day limit on the environmental review of essential projects, such as schools, medical facilities, clean energy, affordable housing, public transportation and wildfire mitigation.
Prop 45 would also require courts to rule on lawsuits related to the environmental review law within 270 days, which would “strip power from the courts to enforce environmental laws and empower developers to bring new litigation against public agencies,” said Aruna Prabhala, a senior attorney and director of urban wildlands with the Center for Biological Diversity.
“Prop 45 would radically rewrite our state’s most important environmental law and undermine the core protections that those laws provide for communities and wildlife in California,” said Prabhala during a No on Prop 45 virtual briefing. The legislation would “gut environmental review requirements” for various projects, including dams, freeway expansions and data centers.
Further, she added, the changes would be locked in permanently, because Prop 45 “has no expiration date.”
The California Federation of Teachers (CFT) is among more than 300 organizations that oppose Prop 45 – other opponents include California Professional Firefighters, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Sierra Club California and the California Democratic Party. CFT said the 41-page ballot initiative would weaken California’s protections against President Donald Trump’s “attack on [the state’s] clean air, clean water and public health laws.”
“Educators and students deserve to live and learn in healthy communities,” said CFT President Jeff Freitas. “Prop 45 is a Trump-like attack on our environmental safeguards, limits community input on projects and allows corporate developers to take dangerous shortcuts on polluting projects.”
Prop 45 proponents – including the Agricultural Council of California, California Council for Affordable Housing, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and the California Hydrogen Coalition – claim that permitting timelines required by CEQA are outdated and broken, and argue that the current system causes unnecessary delays rather than protecting the environment.
Prabhala strongly disagrees.
“CEQA is the only state law that allows for community input for land use decisions and ensures that public agencies disclose, analyze and, when needed, mitigate impacts from proposed projects before they are built,” she explained. “But Prop 45 … would undercut all of those steps without addressing the core problems Californians are facing, including affordability.”
Supporters of Prop 45 claim that reducing bureaucratic red tape and streamlining the approval process for essential projects would help lower the cost of living for Californians. They argue that extensive environmental reviews and related delays drive up the costs of everyday essentials by limiting access to, for example, affordable housing or lower-cost cleaner energy options.
“The initiative has been pitched as this modest reform that would provide relief to everyday Californians in terms of affordability, particularly around housing,” said Jordan Grimes, legislative director at Greenbelt Alliance. “But both of these claims are fundamentally untrue.”
If passed, the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that Prop 45 would cost state and local governments an estimated $100 million or more annually during its initial years, because it would require establishing an entirely new system for project and judicial reviews. In addition, cities would be forced to hire additional staff or pay more overtime to meet tighter deadlines.
Further, rushing project reviews could miss major infrastructure flaws, which could ultimately result in costly cleanups or fixes later on, costs that could be passed on to taxpayers.
“It’s our contention – it’s our belief – that this initiative [Prop 45] will really cost Californians far more than it says it will save them,” said Grimes, “and that Californians – both our environment and our wallets – cannot afford for the initiative to pass.”