Part II: Understanding How Proposition 45 Could Affect California’s Rivers and Communities
Last month, we began to explore how Prop. 45, appearing on California’s November ballot, could reshape the state’s environmental review process. This month, we take a deeper dive into what those changes could mean in practice.
Why Data Centers Have Become a Focal Point
Although much of the public discussion surrounding Prop. 45 has focused on housing, one of the initiative’s most important unanswered questions involves large data centers. These large, energy-intensive facilities power cloud computing, artificial intelligence, online banking, streaming services, and many of the digital technologies that have become part of everyday life. As demand for these services continues to grow, so has the push to build and expand large data centers across California.
While Prop. 45 does not specifically mention data centers, it defines an “essential broadband internet access project” as a project providing mass-market retail internet service. It also includes related and ancillary infrastructure within an eligible project. Although that interpretation will ultimately be tested in the courts, a data-center developer will likely argue that a particular facility or supporting infrastructure fits those provisions. Overall eligibility would still depend on project specifics and application of the adopted language, but because the initiative’s language does not expressly limit the project category to last-mile connections, publicly funded broadband needs, or to provide services to underserved communities, its outer boundaries remain uncertain.
The issue is also unfolding against a federal push to accelerate data-center construction. Executive Order 14318 directs federal agencies to streamline permitting and make federal resources available for qualifying data-center infrastructure. Although federal policy does not determine how CEQA applies, the federal pressure increases the need to understand whether California projects could qualify for Prop. 45’s separate streamlined procedures.
That distinction matters because modern data centers are more than large buildings. They often require substations, transmission lines, water infrastructure, roads, and other supporting facilities, and their electricity and water demands vary substantially by size and cooling design.
Why Timing Matters
One of the main changes that would occur under Prop. 45 is in relation to the timing of various CEQA procedures for the identified eligible projects. If adopted, public-comment periods would be capped, the applicant could choose to develop a single alternative, the administrative record would be more limited, and the scope of court review and available remedies would be narrower. Although supporters argue that these changes would reduce delay and make approvals and litigation more predictable, critics remain concerned that they could leave agencies and communities with less time and information to identify cumulative impacts and mitigate harms before construction proceeds.
If adopted, Prop. 45 would change the rules for eligible projects already moving through environmental review—not just projects proposed after Election Day. The State Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) explains that an applicant that submitted an eligible project before the measure took effect could withdraw and resubmit it to use the new procedures. This timing is potentially relevant to several controversial projects, including California Forever in Solano County, the Esmeralda project in Alexander Valley, and Sites Reservoir. While Prop. 45 does not explicitly establish that any of those projects qualifies, an eligible project could choose to use the changed procedures to reduce the scope of CEQA review and analysis otherwise required under the current rules. Determining whether any particular project could do so though would still require a project-specific analysis.
Qualifying projects that began under the current CEQA framework could therefore encounter different procedures halfway through a process. Communities that have already invested significant time and resources reviewing technical documents, working with experts, and participating in public meetings could see the value of that work diminished if an eligible project shifts midway through the review process to Prop. 45’s tighter public-review periods, narrower alternatives analysis, more limited administrative record, and different judicial remedies. For these and other reasons, critics worry that these changes could make identified impacts harder to address later.
As California experiences substantial growth in infrastructure related to energy, broadband, logistics, and artificial intelligence, the timing of Prop. 45 could shape how many of those projects are reviewed in the years ahead.
Beyond CEQA: Why the Review Process Matters
Supporters of Prop. 45 argue that enforceable timelines and more predictable litigation will reduce delay and cost while leaving other environmental laws in place. Although it is true that laws protecting endangered species, water quality, wetlands, air quality, and other natural resources would remain, the LAO has described CEQA studies as providing valuable information to decision-makers and the public and helping avoid unnecessary impacts, including effects on traffic, air, and water quality. This helps explain why narrowing CEQA review under Prop. 45 could still undercut other protections: their effective application often relies on the information and coordination CEQA produces by identifying impacts, comparing alternatives, developing mitigation, and inviting public input before a project is approved.
If the broader environmental review process is narrowed, agencies and communities will likely have fewer opportunities to identify cumulative impacts to rivers, groundwater, wildlife habitat, wetlands, and surrounding communities before decisions are made. Some impacts may continue to be addressed through individual permitting programs, while others may depend on the more integrated review CEQA has traditionally provided. Understanding that interaction is essential to evaluating what would change in practice.
For watersheds like the Russian River, where water supply, fish habitat, wildfire resilience, agriculture, and community development are deeply connected, those procedural changes could have lasting consequences, with varying effects in different areas.
Why This Matters
Environmental review is not simply paperwork. It is the process through which communities understand proposed projects, agencies identify environmental risks, and better solutions emerge before a project begins. At the same time, lengthy or unpredictable review can increase costs and delay needed projects. California sought to address some of those concerns through its 2025 reforms, AB 130 and SB 131, which the LAO reports already narrowed existing reviews and created new CEQA exemptions for specified infill housing and other projects.
Because those reforms have had little time to be implemented, it remains unclear what, if any, specific housing-related issues Prop. 45 would address beyond the 2025 changes. Regardless of whether Prop. 45 would improve housing production as supporters claim, one of its effects would be to narrow CEQA review for qualifying industrial, infrastructure, and other development projects within the measure’s specified categories.
Whether the discussion is about housing, data centers, water infrastructure, or clean energy, the question extends beyond how quickly projects can be built. It also concerns what information agencies and communities will have, which alternatives must be evaluated, and what remedies remain if the process does not comply with the law. As Californians consider Prop. 45, those are the practical questions worth examining.
Sources and further reading
California Secretary of State, Proposition 45 official analysis and text
White House, Executive Order 14318: Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure
Governor of California, 2025 AB 130 and SB 131 housing and CEQA reforms
Legislative Analyst’s Office, Proposition 45 official analysis
Legislative Analyst’s Office, December 10, 2025 initiative analysis
Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2025–26 Spending Plan Overview (CEQA reforms)
