Republish
Ballot measure would broaden reform of California’s key environmental law
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer “By Author Name, CalMatters.” If you’re republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use “By Author Name, Special for CalMatters.”
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the story’s text, include this copy: “This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: “This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you’re republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Alameda County” to “Alameda County, California” or “here.”
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: “Additional reporting by [Your Publication]” and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as “for CalMatters” may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If you’d like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if you’re interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? We’d love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.
Ballot measure would broaden reform of California’s key environmental law
Share this:
Former Gov. Jerry Brown once referred to overhauling the California Environmental Quality Act as “the Lord’s work” because, he said, it made building much-needed things — housing, transportation improvements, water storage, etc. — too difficult and too expensive.
In 2018, as he neared the end of his second stint as governor, Brown vetoed a bill that would have prevented developers from circumventing CEQA’s laborious provisions by persuading local voters to directly approve projects.
It was one of hundreds of legislative measures CEQA’s defenders — environmental groups primarily — and its critics have proposed in the nearly half-century since then-Gov. Ronald Reagan signed CEQA in 1970.
“Instead of the piecemeal approach taken in this bill, I prefer a more comprehensive CEQA review, which takes into account both the urgent need for more housing and thoughtful environmental analysis,” Brown said in vetoing the bill.
However during his 16 years in the governorship, Brown did virtually nothing to make the fundamental changes he said were needed. CEQA reform was in a political stalemate and, without that “comprehensive review,” governors and legislators have been dealing with the law’s impacts on a case-by-case basis.
Projects that had heavyweight backing — professional sports venues in particular — and the Legislature’s own Capitol construction project could get relief from CEQA’s requirements.
In more recent years, during Gavin Newsom’s governorship, the state’s housing shortage became a frontline political issue. CEQA became a contentious aspect of it as Newsom and legislators enacted numerous bills to remove or reduce procedural barriers to construction.
Pro-housing groups saw CEQA as a tool development opponents were using to delay or kill projects and that construction unions were misusing to compel developers to employ their members.
Newsom, whose 2018 campaign promises to jump-start housing construction had not borne much fruit, took up the cause of reforming CEQA. A few months ago, in a bill attached to the state budget, he and legislators enacted a major overhaul of the law’s application to housing, particularly high-density, multi-family projects.
“Saying ‘no’ to housing in my community will no longer be state sanctioned,” said Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, an Oakland Democrat who is one of state’s the most pro-housing legislators. “This isn’t going to solve all of our housing problems in the state, but it is going to remove the single biggest impediment to building environmentally friendly housing.”
The law’s passage raises another question: Would it be a one-off, or the beginning of a more sweeping change in CEQA that would make other, non-housing projects easier to build?
READ NEXT
One of the biggest obstacles to building new CA housing has now vanished
The California Chamber of Commerce hopes it will be the latter and recently unveiled a ballot measure for the 2026 election that would make it happen. In the main the measure would, if approved by voters, tighten up and streamline the processes for environmental reviews for “essential projects.”
“We’ve fallen too far behind in building the infrastructure that our communities desperately need,” the business organization’s president, Jennifer Barrera, said in a statement. “And the projects that make it through the broken permitting process become so expensive that they raise costs for all of us.”
Barrera cited a list of public and private projects that had been adversely affected by CEQA’s requirements in statute and created by judicial decisions.
“The initiative will create predictability for improvements the state desperately needs — including the building of first responder facilities, wildfire resilience projects, and broadband in underserved communities,” Barrera said. “Californians deserve a law that recognizes prosperity isn’t the enemy of preservation.”
Given the stakes for project proponents and opponents, and CEQA’s almost mythical status, the campaign for and against the measure could be one of the most contentious ballot battles in the state’s history.
READ NEXT
California lawmakers finally achieve ‘holy grail’ reform of state’s key environmental law
Newsom did what he pledged to do to jump-start housing production. Still no progress
Dan WaltersOpinion Columnist
Dan Walters is one of most decorated and widely syndicated columnists in California history, authoring a column four times a week that offers his view and analysis of the state’s political, economic,... More by Dan Walters