The California Environmental Quality Act has spawned lengthy delays, substantial costs, and a web of special interests that exploit the process to derail projects they oppose.
A central challenge in politics is the frequent reluctance of voters to accept that choices involve tradeoffs. Robert Mulligan notes that “it is one of the most basic principles in economics, that in order to have more of one thing, you have to accept having less of something else.” Likewise, economist Thomas Sowell observed, “There are no solutions. There are only tradeoffs.”
That idea is something we can all relate to on a personal level. Lately I’ve been contemplating trading in my fifteen-year-old car for a newer model, one with power windows and Bluetooth. Yet purchasing it would consume money I might instead spend on other pleasures. Such is life.
Politics, however, tends to be a bit paradoxical. Politicians offer promises that everyone can have everything they desire. We could imagine a single-payer healthcare system without any shortages, or tariffs that don’t fuel inflation—or tariffs that somehow are paid for by Mexico. It would be nice if lawmakers were straightforward about the inevitable ups and downs that accompany policy choices.
One ballot measure that captures this tradeoff tension is Prop. 45. It proposes to reform California’s vaunted environmental statute, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The question is simple: do we want more construction and the benefits that come with it, or do we preserve a regulatory labyrinth that allows opponents to block projects they don’t like?
CEQA is not a minor reform issue to be settled at the ballot box, but since Gov. Ronald Reagan signed it into law in 1970, the statute has enveloped construction projects of every kind in a maze of hearings, Environmental Impact Reports, and lawsuits. CEQA was designed to ensure developers mitigate environmental harm. That aim sounds reasonable, yet it has produced long delays, enormous costs, and a cadre of special interests that use the process to halt projects or extract non-environmental concessions (for example, wage concessions demanded by unions).
There is broad agreement in the Legislature that CEQA has intensified California’s housing crisis, constrained business growth, and slowed the state’s economy. The law also threatens environmental priorities, as cynical actors have used it to derail parks, transit projects, infill housing, wildfire-fighting brush-clearing efforts, and more.
Lawmakers have carved out exemptions for various projects from CEQA, but these carve-outs have been piecemeal and narrowly targeted. Sponsored by the pragmatic California Chamber of Commerce, Prop. 45 seeks to extend broad reform to projects deemed “essential.” According to the measure, that list includes housing, water systems, clean energy, health facilities, police and fire stations, brush clearance, broadband, educational facilities, and transportation projects—with the notable exception of the high-speed rail project.
As the Legislative Analyst’s Office explains, Prop. 45 would impose more stringent time limits on both state and local governments for CEQA and permitting reviews. This includes deadlines for determining whether a project application is complete, finishing the Environmental Impact Report, and granting other types of approvals and permits. Some provisions are deeply technical, but the overarching aim is to accelerate processes and curb the scope of court reviews.
“CEQA lawsuits, inclusive of appeals, typically take four to five years to resolve, stalling most approved projects and often deterring lenders, investors and grant-making agencies from funding them,” explained a September report from the Holland & Knight law firm. Ask anyone familiar with California’s construction pace, and they will point to these CEQA bottlenecks. If the state wants to reduce housing prices, it needs to fix this logjam.
As a voter, you face a straightforward question: do the benefits outweigh the downsides? The caveat is that expediting approvals for projects you favor will also speed up approvals for ones you dislike. It’s no surprise that opponents have warned that Prop. 45 could enable data-center construction, given how unpopular those facilities are in some circles.
We need more housing, including suburban subdivisions. We need more businesses. We need better freeways. We also need to accelerate brush-clearing efforts to prevent catastrophic wildfires. Therefore, I support the measure, even if it may bring faster construction of projects I like less—such tradeoffs are inevitable. Will it likely bring timely completion of underused light-rail lines and subsidized apartment complexes that some find irritating? Probably. But bad will come with the good, regardless of what campaigns claim.
For instance, the proponents contend that Prop. 45 would preserve “the same strong protections.” California’s environmental safeguards will remain robust, but they will not be literally the same. Opponents insist that CEQA needs reform, but this particular fix isn’t the right path. That accusation reflects a narrow reluctance to acknowledge the downsides inherent in any reform.
In my view, Prop. 45 offers more advantages than drawbacks. You decide for yourself, but please grow up and recognize the tradeoffs. As science-fiction author Robert Heinlein famously observed, “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL).”
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
