Environmental Act at Risk

The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 remains the state’s most important safeguard against the sort of development that can threaten the quality of land, air and water resources. As the state continues to grow and build, the law is more important than ever.

The law requires government agencies to compile environmental impact reports on projects and to investigate potential alternatives, outlining methods to mitigate any significant adverse effects. Officials determine whether the impact is manageable or acceptable and, in some cases, whether a project should be scaled back or reconfigured.

CEQA, as it’s commonly called, currently is embroiled in controversy because the state Resources Agency is adopting new guidelines for administering the law. Environmental groups and some state legislators are adamantly opposing many of the new guidelines, arguing that they alter the intent of CEQA and undermine its results. Resources Agency officials just as heatedly contend that the effect is to make CEQA stronger than before.

The Resources Agency was prepared to adopt the new rules late last year, but opposition was so keen that officials decided to make changes. Critics say the revisions, released in May, made some minor improvements, but the most controversial changes remain intact.

The new rules appear to significantly narrow the requirement for developers to consider the cumulative impact of likely future developments in the same area--for instance, a traffic increase caused by one housing project combined with that of another to be built still later. The guidelines also delete the use of a checklist that helps public agencies to determine what constitutes a significant impact. The list has been an integral and important part of the law since its enactment and should not be discarded.

California should certainly weed out needless regulation that delays projects and costs money, but it should be done without weakening the law. Environmental policy is a matter for the Legislature, not the bureaucracy. The Resources Agency should reconsider these controversial new guidelines.