Even as tallying continues, early indications suggest that a majority of ballots have rejected a sweeping rewrite of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Official tallies have not yet been finalized, but California’s Proposition 45, which would have dramatically trimmed environmental review requirements for projects ranging from new energy infrastructure to new highways, appears headed for defeat.
As about 65 percent of ballots have been counted, Proposition 45 stands at roughly 45.1 percent in support and 54.9 percent opposed.
That sizable and growing gap does not look likely to be closed.
If Proposition 45 fails, it would mark a major setback for the effort to make California a state that prioritizes building.
At the heart of the measure’s reforms lies the California Environmental Quality Act, which obligates government agencies to assess the environmental impacts of projects they undertake directly as well as those private initiatives they have some discretionary control over.
In practice, this means anything from a publicly financed highway to a privately developed suburban subdivision must be evaluated for effects on noise, air quality, traffic, archaeological resources, and more.
Additionally, the law empowers third parties to challenge agency approvals of projects in court by contending that a given environmental impact was not studied thoroughly enough.
These elements have made CEQA infamous for slowing development across the Golden State. The most stringent CEQA reviews can stretch for years, and for some large undertakings the environmental study phase can endure for decades.
The statute has also become a tool for project opponents to slow growth. From labor unions to rival developers, many have used the threat of CEQA litigation to extract concessions from project sponsors.
California hasn’t overlooked these issues. Former Gov. Jerry Brown described CEQA reform as “the Lord’s work.” Current Gov. Gavin Newsom has criticized the law for hindering development, though he declined to back Proposition 45.
Progress on CEQA reforms has been incremental, with the Legislature carving out exemptions for entire project categories (notably urban infill housing) from reform efforts.
Proposition 45 represented an ambitious bid by the state Chamber of Commerce to overhaul core provisions of the law across a wider range of projects.
It would have established an opt-in, streamlined CEQA process for what it termed “essential” projects, spanning everything from energy and water infrastructure to highways to suburban housing and beyond.
This streamlined pathway would be governed by binding deadlines. For instance, the most rigorous CEQA reviews would need to be completed within a year. Rather than weighing an indeterminate number of environmental impacts, this streamlined route would require sponsors to confirm that their project conforms to objective, existing regulations.
The measure would also narrow the grounds on which opponents could sue under CEQA. CEQA lawsuits would be required to be resolved on an expedited schedule as well.
Backers of Proposition 45 framed the proposal as less radical than the lengthy list of CEQA exemptions already enacted by the Legislature. It did not promise project approval nor permit any project to skip CEQA review entirely.
Nevertheless, it was undeniable that the streamlined, opt-in process was markedly different and far less rigorous than current CEQA requirements.
Hence, it drew broad opposition from environmental groups, unions, and even Jane Fonda. It also divided housing advocates who had long supported reforming CEQA to facilitate urban housing and transportation development.
Some of these groups opposed the measure because it potentially opened the door to more single-family greenfield development. Some of the state’s largest YIMBY (yes in my backyard) organizations elected not to take a definitive position for or against it.
Putting ambitious CEQA reform on the ballot was an experimental move. As votes continue to roll in, Proposition 45 increasingly looks like a defeated measure.
There are a few lessons to draw from what appears to be its failure. First, there doesn’t seem to be a single, cohesive “abundance” movement. Not every group seeking more apartments desires more single-family homes. Many people frustrated by CEQA delays to bike lanes still favor blocking a highway.
When the call to “build more of everything more quickly” was on the ballot, some pro-development factions aligned with anti-growth forces. That alignment proved sufficient to deny Proposition 45.
The second takeaway is that, at least in California, voters don’t view broad-based permitting reform as a cure for the widespread pain caused by rising living costs.
Survey after survey indicated that the midterm electorate was chiefly motivated by expensive and rising prices and concerns about government corruption. Despite proponents’ attempts to cast reform as a measure of affordability, a majority of voters remained unconvinced.
All of these findings point to meaningful political limits on the viability of a sweeping “abundance” agenda, even if the policy itself might be sound in principle.
On CEQA specifically, reform advocates are likely to revert to older strategies, pursuing targeted exemptions and more modest reforms within the state Legislature.
