September 11, 2026
The California Environmental Quality Act has been used in such an abusive way for more than 50 years that then-Gov. Jerry Brown’s 2012 description of CEQA reform as “the Lord’s work” has gone from being seen as a good one-liner from an unusually witty politician to a profound observation about life in the Golden State.
There is a reason the Legislature has had to pass so many CEQA exemptions: Many major, valuable projects would never have been built without this protection. The 1970 state law makes it too easy for third parties to block or stall proposals that they don’t like or want to be paid to support. This led directly to a 2017 analysis that documents CEQA’s central role in the state’s decades-old shortage of housing, massively driving up the cost of all types of shelter and impoverishing millions of residents.
Yes, of course, some CEQA lawsuits are defensible and necessary. In San Diego, a city that’s made many big mistakes for three decades, the alarm over Mayor Todd Gloria and his allies attempting to exclude the massive Midway Rising project from the normal regulatory scrutiny is understandable.
But when you see the range of organizations that have vowed support for Proposition 45 — a modest CEQA reform on the November ballot sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce — it’s eye-opening. The California Hospital Association, the California Farm Bureau, the California Senior Alliance and more than a half-dozen clean energy groups are among a vast list of institutions seeking relief from the migraines they face because of the broadly written, vague law.
The proposition would impose a 365-day limit on official environmental reviews for projects ranging from broadband construction to building roads, homes and schools to wildfire mitigation. Courts would be given a maximum of 270 days to rule on CEQA suits after they are filed.
Contrary to claims that the changes would gut “the state’s strongest-in-the-nation environmental laws,” local governments would still have considerable authority in the approval process. Activists wouldn’t be muzzled.
This is reflected in the analysis of Proposition 45 from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, the most respected voice in state government. The LAO’s biggest concern had to do with potentially substantial implementation costs for state and local governments, not weakened green regulations. And the analysis also noted the benefit to governments of new revenue from ventures no longer blocked by CEQA — and from having their own projects cost less.
Proposition 45 won’t transform the state’s regulatory maze overnight. But it would make California’s planning approval process fairer, less expensive and considerably more predictable.
In a state riddled with dysfunction, that would be a rare victory for common sense. Yes on 45.