A November ballot initiative, Proposition 45, aims to overhaul how California’s environmental review process plays out, proposing changes that would affect development, infrastructure, and housing projects across the state. At the core of the measure is a debate over who holds power in environmental reviews, with some legal experts indicating that Prop. 45 would shift control away from courts and the public, giving project applicants more authority at key stages.
The California Chamber of Commerce sponsors the measure, asserting it would cut costs by speeding up building. However, critics argue the proposition goes much further than simple streamlining. Ethan Elkind, a climate law expert at the Berkeley School of Law, described the measure as not "surgical at all," but rather a "sea change."
California’s landmark environmental review law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), signed in 1970, requires agencies to evaluate and mitigate the environmental impacts of development. Over the decades, developers have voiced concerns that the process, marked by litigation and bureaucracy, slows down necessary housing and other projects. Conversely, environmental groups maintain that CEQA empowers communities to have a say in how projects are built.
State leaders have recently acted to ease CEQA’s requirements for housing in response to the housing shortage and high prices, with Governor Gavin Newsom signing laws in 2025 to exempt many housing projects from lengthy reviews. Prop. 45 would extend to housing projects not covered by these exemptions, as well as roads, water systems, broadband, and wildfire mitigation infrastructure.
Currently, public agencies are responsible for reviewing a project's potential environmental impacts. Project applicants, often developers, submit an initial study. The lead public agency then decides if impacts are significant enough for more thorough scrutiny. Agencies must compare the effects of various project alternatives, including a "no project" scenario, and judge impacts using environmental standards that can be revised as new information emerges. The public can submit comments and suggest alternatives, which the agency must consider. If a review is deemed illegal or incomplete, the public and environmental groups can challenge it in court.
Prop. 45 introduces several procedural changes. It would mandate that agencies decide on an environmental impact report within 365 business days for projects defined as essential. It would also require courts to resolve related cases within 270 calendar days. Eligible applicants could choose to follow these new procedures or stick with existing ones.
Supporters of Prop. 45 contend that the current process leads to unnecessary delays and expenses, including the costs of reviewing late public comments and defending against lawsuits. Jennifer Barrera, chief executive of the California Chamber of Commerce, stated that current delays could add "anywhere from six to 10 years" to project timelines, with these costs ultimately borne by consumers. Dan Dunmoyer, chief executive of the California Building Industry Association, claimed the proposition could decrease the cost of the average home by $75,000, calling Prop. 45 the "sweet spot" for a thriving society.
However, opponents, including environmental groups, some labor unions, and the California Democratic Party, assert the measure goes too far, granting excessive power to project applicants and undermining CEQA’s purpose. Aruna Prabhala, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, warned that it could lead to less community input, strip agencies of tools to protect communities, increase costly litigation, and practically eliminate agencies’ ability to enforce the law.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Legislature’s nonpartisan adviser, notes that Prop. 45 not only accelerates the process but also alters rules for applicants and overseeing agencies. Under the proposed changes, applicants could present only one project alternative for agency consideration, instead of the multiple alternatives currently assessed. Agencies would be required to judge a project’s impacts based on the environmental standards in place at the time of application, rather than having the flexibility to revise them as new information emerges. Furthermore, agencies would need to list all application requirements upfront. Should an agency miss the 365-business-day deadline, the applicant could request a hearing and potentially sue.
The public and courts would also see reduced influence. Public comments would be subject to a strict 45-day deadline, with any late comments excluded from the record a judge could review during litigation. While courts could still order agencies to fix flawed reviews, they would only be able to halt the specific part of a project that failed to comply, not the entire project. These rules would also apply when public agencies act as developers for their own projects, such as roads or water systems, allowing them to analyze a single alternative and choose environmental rules based on the submission date.
Sean Marciniak, an attorney for Hanson Bridgett, which assisted the California Chamber of Commerce in drafting the measure, argued that agencies would retain the power to reject projects and that the measure would not override other planning or zoning laws. He added that the changes "will protect agencies in their decisions."
Organizations representing local governments, such as the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties, have largely remained neutral on the debate. Rural counties, which often advocate for CEQA reform due to staffing and cash constraints, initially saw Prop. 45 as a potential solution. John Kennedy, a policy advocate for the Rural County Representatives of California, noted that CEQA has long been "misused and manipulated by a number of interest groups." Despite this, his group, representing parts of 40 counties, ultimately voted to stay neutral, with Kennedy having suggested opposition due to concerns that the measure goes too far.
