California voters will consider Proposition 45 in November, a ballot initiative designed to change the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The measure aims to streamline the environmental review process for various projects, including housing, roads, water systems, broadband infrastructure, and wildfire mitigation. At the heart of the debate is who would hold power over these environmental reviews.
Legal experts suggest Proposition 45 could shift control from courts and the public to project applicants, which include developers and public agencies undertaking their own projects. For public agencies like cities and counties, this could mean less discretion when reviewing projects submitted by others, but potentially faster and more certain processes for their own construction.
CEQA, signed into law in 1970, requires public agencies to assess and help avoid the environmental impacts of development projects. Over the decades, developers have expressed concerns that the review process, including litigation and bureaucracy, causes delays for needed housing and infrastructure. Environmental groups, however, contend that CEQA provides communities a vital voice in how projects are built.
The complexities of the current system are often highlighted by cases such as a California Department of Transportation road project through Richardson Grove State Park. In 2014, residents and environmental groups filed a lawsuit, arguing the project failed to properly evaluate its potential harm to redwood trees. It took courts 15 years to resolve all related legal complaints before Caltrans could proceed. While environmental advocates state the litigation led to better protections for redwood trees, pro-building advocates point to this lengthy process as evidence that CEQA needs an overhaul.
State leaders have recently taken steps to ease CEQA's reach for housing projects, particularly in response to California's housing shortage and high prices. Governor Gavin Newsom signed laws in 2025 that exempt many housing developments from lengthy environmental reviews. Proposition 45 would extend streamlining efforts to housing projects that do not qualify for those exemptions, as well as critical infrastructure projects.
Under the current CEQA process, public agencies are responsible for reviewing environmental impacts. Project applicants typically provide an initial study, and the lead agency determines if further scrutiny is needed. Agencies evaluate a range of project alternatives, including a "no project" option, 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, environmental groups, and other stakeholders can challenge it in court.
Proposition 45 proposes several key changes. For "essential projects," it would give agencies 365 business days to decide on an environmental impact report and require courts to resolve related cases within 270 calendar days. Eligible applicants could choose to follow these new procedures or stick with the existing ones. The measure also changes rules for project applicants and agencies. Applicants could select only one project alternative for agency consideration, rather than the multiple alternatives currently assessed. Agencies would be required to judge a project's impacts based on standards in place at the time of application, rather than revising them with new information. Additionally, agencies would need to list all application requirements upfront. If an agency misses the 365-business-day deadline, the applicant could request a hearing and potentially sue.
Public and court input would also be affected. Public comments would be subject to a strict 45-day deadline, and late comments could not be included in the record for a judge to review during litigation. While courts could still order agencies to fix flawed reviews, they would only be able to stop the specific part of a project that failed to comply, not the entire project. These same rules would apply when public agencies act as developers themselves, allowing them to analyze a single alternative and choose environmental rules applicable at submission, with a court finding of error on one part potentially allowing the overall project to continue.
Supporters argue 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, the measure's sponsor, stated that these delays are costly, potentially adding "six to 10 years added on to the determination of moving a project forward," with these costs ultimately borne by consumers. Dan Dunmoyer, chief executive of the California Building Industry Association, projects the proposition could decrease the cost of the average home by $75,000, calling the measure "the sweet spot" for societal thriving.
Opponents, including environmental groups, some labor unions, and the California Democratic Party, argue that Proposition 45 goes far beyond basic streamlining. Ethan Elkind, a climate law expert, described the measure as "a sea change." Critics say it would grant project applicants excessive power, undermining CEQA's purpose by stripping agencies of tools to protect communities, potentially increasing costly litigation, and practically eliminating agencies' ability to enforce the law. Aruna Prabhala, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, warned that undermining environmental review could lead to less community input for projects.
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 struggle with staffing and resources for complex environmental reviews, have historically advocated for CEQA reform. John Kennedy, a policy advocate for the Rural County Representatives of California, noted that CEQA has "long been misused and manipulated." However, his group ultimately voted to remain neutral on Proposition 45, despite Kennedy’s suggestion to oppose it, believing it goes too far.