A sweeping proposal by Governor Gavin Newsom to rewrite California’s premier environmental law, known as CEQA, drew swift and overwhelming opposition from 75 national, statewide and local non-government organizations including the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Tree People, and Natural Resources Defense Council, along with scores of local organizations. And within a week, a Senate budget committee voted it down 3-0, finding it too complex, all but killing it for now. CEQA has long been the key legal mechanism to protect harbor area residents from port-related pollution causing everything from asthma and cancer to premature deaths.
Newsom announced his intentions on Friday at a 1,100-acre solar farm in Stanislaus County, framed in terms of utilizing an influx of federal dollars to reduce greenhouse gas emissions dramatically. But the details were buried in a set of 11 “trailer bills” added to the budget that by law must be passed by June 15, and the hurried approach sparked a swift backlash.
“We strongly oppose the Administration’s excessive use of the budget trailer bill process to move significant environmental policy,” the NGOs wrote in a letter to legislative leaders. “The trailer bill process is the definition of an exclusive and not inclusive process.”
More precisely, they argued, “The trailer bill process does not provide for inclusive and measured policy hearings, open and public consideration of amendments, or the ability of public discussion. Indeed, the trailer bill process is the quintessential ‘behind closed doors’ process that cuts out any meaningful public engagement or transparency except for chosen stakeholders.”
They specifically did not oppose Newsom’s core objectives. “We agree that our state – indeed the planet – is facing a climate crisis. And we agree that we need to move forward with climate infrastructure quickly,” they wrote. “However, there is no reason why legislation to tackle these important issues must be moved through the trailer bill process instead of through the regular process.”
There was also the question of timing. “It is important to note that there is less than one month – even if we work every day – to draft, review, debate and pass these trailer bills,” they wrote. The rush is even more striking, in light of recent history.
Newsom expressed his intention to revise CEQA on February 25, but the focus then was on housing, in the wake of controversial court ruling that UC Berkeley’s plan to build dorm rooms for nearly 1,200 students “failed to assess potential noise impacts from loud student parties in residential neighborhoods near the campus,” an issue never before considered as an environmental impact.
“A few wealthy Berkeley homeowners should not be able to block desperately needed student housing for years and even decades,” Newsom tweeted. “CEQA needs to change and we are committed to working with the legislature so California can build more housing.”
Two days later, the Little Hoover Commission, California’s independent citizens commission working to improve state government, announced it would hold hearings to examine CEQA, four of which have been held, with a final hearing scheduled for June 22. But no legislative action has been taken. “There were some good ideas, but we just decided this wasn’t the year to do it and there was more work to be done,” Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, told the Sacramento Bee on May 4.
Newsom’s new proposals have a totally different focus—speeding the spending of federal funds to meet the state’s climate goals. But there’s been no open consultative process on the proposals “that will significantly change judicial review, environmental permitting, imperiled species protections, water law, and community engagement among other important laws and policies,” the organizations noted.
They also promised, “Our organizations stand ready to engage with the Legislature and Administration to discuss and draft policy bills – in an open and transparent process so that ALL parties have an opportunity to review, debate and compromise on critical policies that affect communities, natural resources, and cultural resources.”
Newsom’s proposals could still be resurrected in ongoing budget negotiations. But time is so short, it seems far more likely they’ll be reintroduced through the Legislature’s policy committees, where they’ll be subject to the kind of deliberations the NGOs are calling for.