Vote No on Prop. 45: Protect the Future of Our Watershed and Communities
A new pipeline exporting Russian River water to another county. A road expansion crossing a tributary. A carbon dioxide pipeline serving a refinery’s carbon capture project. Prop. 45 reaches beyond small local improvements to include major water and transportation infrastructure, as well as carbon capture, transport, and storage associated with refining facilities. Projects of this scale frequently raise questions about who benefits, where environmental burdens fall, and whether a different design could better protect affected communities. Environmental review is a critical safeguard: it requires agencies to confront environmental consequences before approval and gives communities a way to press for less harmful designs before construction locks in those choices.
If approved, Prop. 45 would significantly narrow that opportunity for qualifying water, transportation, energy, and other projects. It would limit the depth of environmental review, the alternatives agencies can require, public participation opportunities, and court oversight. Russian Riverkeeper urges you to vote NO on Prop. 45.
Consider a future project exporting Russian River water out of the watershed. Residents would want to know how much water leaves the watershed and when the withdrawals would occur. They would also consider how these withdrawals could affect river conditions and local water needs. They could also ask whether the receiving community could meet more of its needs through conservation. They could consider recycled water or other supplies. Comparing alternatives could reveal a less harmful approach. This could include reducing the exported volume. It could also involve adjusting diversion thresholds to protect the river during sensitive periods.
However, under Prop. 45’s optional streamlined alternatives process, review would generally compare the proposed project, one applicant-developed alternative, and a no-project alternative. Additional alternatives would be at the applicant’s discretion. Residents might suggest different rules for when and how much water could be taken. The lead government agency could not require the developer to study those rules as an additional alternative under this process. That choice would rest solely with the developer. Communities could still voice concerns, but there would be fewer opportunities and less ability to secure a meaningful comparison of solutions. Our communities should not bear avoidable harms simply because lower-impact options are more expensive or located elsewhere.
This can quickly exacerbate environmental justice issues too. Imagine a wealthier receiving community benefiting from exported water while pipelines and pumping facilities are placed in lower-income communities because land is cheaper and residents have fewer resources to challenge the plans. California’s Inland Empire shows how these burdens already play out: warehouse and distribution centers bring heavy truck traffic and air pollution to surrounding neighborhoods. These are the kinds of harms CEQA review is meant to identify and reduce before approval, through mitigation and comparison of less harmful locations or designs.
If approved, Prop. 45 would exacerbate this pattern for future qualifying projects by narrowing the alternatives agencies can require, leaving communities with even fewer tools to press for options that avoid concentrating those burdens near homes and schools. Measures to reduce pollution from a chosen site or design may offer less protection than selecting a location or approach that avoids exposing the community in the first place.
The same problem could arise with a road expansion crossing a creek. A different alignment might avoid sensitive habitat, while another crossing or drainage design might reduce disturbance and polluted runoff. But an applicant’s single alternative could change the road’s size while leaving those features largely untouched. Agencies would retain mitigation authority, subject to the measure’s limits, but could not require additional alternatives simply because another design deserved comparison. For example, runoff treatment and erosion controls could reduce pollution from the selected road design. Whereas comparing alternatives asks a different question: could another route or crossing design avoid disturbing the creek or sensitive habitat in the first place? Both approaches matter. Our creeks and communities deserve more than efforts to reduce damage from a predetermined design. We should retain the power to demand a full comparison of feasible options that could avoid that damage altogether.
Understanding these choices takes time. Neighbors, resource agencies, consultants, and local governments may all need time to review available project plans, environmental reports, and supporting studies on water supply, air pollution, traffic, noise, habitat, and public safety, coordinate their findings, and identify gaps. Prop. 45 would set a 45-day draft environmental impact report comment period, with extensions available only through a court. Even if important technical or impact questions emerged late in review, the lead government agency could not simply grant more time. Instead, residents would have to seek judicial relief while simultaneously preparing their comments.
If an inadequate review led to approval, the options for correcting it would also narrow. Under Prop. 45’s CEQA remedy provisions, courts could not order the approval rescinded, regardless of the severity of the environmental harms identified, and corrective relief would be limited to the noncomplying project part, phase, or activity. Other construction could advance while the deficiency was corrected—potentially making changes harder before an important environmental question was resolved.
These examples illustrate choices future projects could present. Agencies would retain approval authority, and other environmental laws would remain. Yet environmental review protections are also being rolled back at the federal level: the Council on Environmental Quality removed its government-wide regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, a change finalized in January 2026. Public participation is more effective when agencies can require a fuller comparison, allow adequate review time, and be held accountable through meaningful court remedies.
Our watershed needs reliable water supplies, safe transportation, and resilient infrastructure. Careful review helps us meet those needs while protecting the river we share.
Protect our watershed and our community’s voice. Russian Riverkeeper says NO on Prop. 45.
Sources
Legislative Analyst’s Office — Proposition 45 Analysis
U.S. EPA — Warehouse pollution and environmental justice in Southern California (October 12, 2023)
