As Californians consider Prop. 45 this November, much of the discussion continues to focus on housing. However, the measure comes after major 2025 changes that already exempted qualifying infill housing and narrowed CEQA review for other necessary housing projects. Instead, Prop. 45’s reach extends far beyond residential development to a large swath of other “essential” projects that can have lasting consequences for our communities and environment across a broad range of issues.
Unfortunately, due to pressure from Governor Newsom’s office in 2025, the 2025 changes also included broad new CEQA exemptions for things like advanced manufacturing, broadband, and other large and potentially harmful projects, while removing considerations for things like listed-species habitat. When our State Legislature tried to rectify some of these changes with SB 954 by narrowing the manufacturing exemption and restoring habitat safeguards for protected species, Newsom vetoed the bill. Combined with the federal government’s rollback of environmental rules that have been on the books for decades, our communities and environment are quickly losing the few tools we had to ensure that our voices are heard and the values we share are protected.
If approved, Prop. 45 would continue the trend perpetuated by our federal government by further limiting public participation, alternatives analysis, and agency authority over a broad range of “essential” projects. Taken together, these changes risk leaving communities with a much weaker version of CEQA and even fewer opportunities to improve projects and mitigate harms before approval. Prop. 45’s proposed changes to tribal consultation and public agency processes provide two examples of how these changes would limit participation for “essential projects.”
Tribal Consultation: Earlier Engagement, But Fewer Tribes
Under AB 52, consultation rights currently extend to California Native American tribes on the Native American Heritage Commission’s contact list, including tribes without federal recognition. This means that agencies must notify affiliated tribes that requested notice within 14 days of finding an application complete or deciding to undertake a project. Tribes then have 30 days to request consultation. Once a tribe requests it, the agency must begin consulting with that tribe within 30 days and before releasing the environmental review document for public comment. The current consultation process is frequently observed as flawed though, as it is often seen as being more perfunctory than an actual recognition of tribal interests.
While Prop. 45 begins to address these tight and often unrealistic timelines by expanding important opportunities for tribes to engage on projects before an application is complete, Prop. 45 also simultaneously restricts what tribes are allowed to participate in consultation. On their own, the proposals to expand individual opportunities for tribal engagement are needed changes, with more opportunities and earlier opportunities for tribes to discuss impacts and measures they deem protective of their sovereign interests. However, Prop. 45 would provide these revisions only to federally recognized tribes affiliated with the project area, excluding dozens of California tribes without federal recognition. Those tribes could still submit public comments, but that would not replace the formal consultation process through which ancestral places, cultural resources, and tribal knowledge are considered.
Government Review: Less Discretion, More Deadlines
The proposed changes under Prop. 45 go beyond who gets consulted. An environmental impact report (EIR) ordinarily considers a reasonable range of feasible alternatives that could reduce significant harms to the community and environment. Under Prop. 45’s streamlined alternative-analysis option, an applicant would only have to develop one alternative in conjunction with the proposed project and a “no-project” alternative. Additional alternatives would depend on what the applicant is willing to propose, rather than whether another approach would better protect community values and natural resources. In practice, this would give developers greater control over which options receive detailed consideration and limit agencies’ ability to require a fuller comparison meant to address community concerns.
Agencies would also generally be tied to the laws and standards in place when an application was submitted. With the federal government rolling back its most important environmental regulations, and California increasingly choosing to not fill in the gaps and even rolling back its own regulations, this is especially concerning. So, while other environmental laws would remain enforceable, narrowing CEQA review could reduce the information, coordination, and public scrutiny that help identify problems and support effective protections under those other laws. Locking in older standards could also limit the benefit of safeguards adopted while a project is under review.
Public participation would face different limits as well. Existing law generally provides at least 30 days for EIR comments, or 45 days when a state agency reviews the document, with longer periods available when needed. In contrast, Prop. 45 would set the EIR comment period at 45 calendar days and allow extensions only through a court. This means communities and reviewing agencies could have less time to evaluate technical studies, coordinate expert input, and identify overlooked impacts before decisions are made. Overall review deadlines would change too, potentially increasing pressure to reach a decision when unresolved issues still need attention.
If an agency misses its deadline, an applicant could demand a hearing and approval or denial within 60 days, using the available environmental documentation, even if it is incomplete. Failure to meet applicable deadlines could expose agencies to developer lawsuits that consume staff time and public funds. That pressure could encourage rushed decisions and incomplete reviews to avoid litigation. The Legislative Analyst estimates initial state and local implementation costs in the high tens of millions of dollars annually, potentially exceeding $100 million. Those costs include developing new review guidelines and standards, meeting tighter deadlines, and responding to court challenges during the first several years of implementation.
Build Resilience With Communities
Clean energy, wildfire resilience, and improved water management are all essential to responding to climate change and drought. However, we believe it matters how those projects are designed and that the community deserves the right to be informed and as involved as they choose, to ensure public health, environmental protections, and long-term affordability are all part of the discussion.
Looking at water infrastructure, for example, it is important that we look at what alternatives we have that are available to reduce demand and increase supply before immediately jumping to expensive new infrastructure. Better information about daily water use and availability can help identify opportunities to reduce waste, target conservation efforts, and stretch existing supplies before committing to expensive new infrastructure. Identifying where waste is occurring and how much water is available at any given time also helps us make informed decisions about long-term investments so that our communities are not unnecessarily burdened by costs that are not needed.
Environmental review provides an opportunity to compare various approaches before communities commit to the costs and consequences. Faster approvals should still allow agencies and the public to understand environmental harms, consider less damaging alternatives, and protect the environments and values they hold dear.
Our communities need a meaningful say in decisions that affect their health, water, and environment. Prop. 45 would narrow the issues courts can consider and the remedies they can provide, making it harder for communities to secure changes before lasting harm occurs.
Take time to learn more about Prop. 45’s impacts and make sure to vote.
Sources
1. LAO analysis of Prop. 45, Proposal and Fiscal Effects.
2. Campaign perspective: No on Prop. 45 — Get the Facts
