Proposition 45 Draws Scrutiny Over Environmental Review Changes

California voters are set to decide on Proposition 45, known as the “Building an Affordable California Act,” on November 3. While the proposition claims to expedite the development of clean energy and housing, a closer examination of its text by groups like Friends of the Inyo suggests it could significantly alter California's environmental review process, potentially prioritizing certain development interests over community input and existing environmental safeguards.

Opponents assert that Proposition 45 would substantially weaken the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA is a foundational state law requiring developers to study and disclose the environmental and public health impacts of their projects, and to implement measures to mitigate those impacts. The proposition specifically targets projects it deems “essential,” proposing changes to their review.

Under Proposition 45, a wide range of projects could be fast-tracked, including data centers, forest clear-cutting operations, dam constructions, CO2 pipelines, freeway expansions, landfill gas facilities, and sprawl housing developments. Critics question the characterization of such a broad array of projects as solely clean energy initiatives, arguing that the measure’s scope extends well beyond this claim.

Regarding housing, the proposition’s text does not include any requirements for the housing it covers to be affordable, nor does it mandate lower utility bills. Furthermore, California already enacted Assembly Bill 130 in 2025, which exempts infill housing from CEQA review, addressing a component of housing acceleration that Proposition 45 also seeks to influence.

A particular concern raised involves data centers. While Proposition 45 explicitly excludes certain controversial projects, such as new oil and gas production, nuclear facilities, and high-speed rail, data centers are not on this exclusion list. Land use attorneys Richard Frank of UC Davis and Matthew McKerley interpret this silence as an intention to include data centers within the scope of the proposition. These attorneys also report over $2 million in donations to the Yes campaign for Prop 45 from three companies involved in data center development, including Prologis and California Resources Corporation.

State and local governments would bear significant financial costs if Proposition 45 passes. The Legislative Analyst, California's nonpartisan fiscal office, estimates that the new review process would cost these entities tens of millions of dollars annually, potentially exceeding $100 million each year, with taxpayers ultimately covering these expenses.

Opposition to Proposition 45 is broad, with hundreds of organizations publicly stating their concerns. Among these groups are the California Native Plant Society, Sierra Club California, the California Labor Federation, and Friends of the Inyo. These organizations collectively argue that the measure poses a threat to environmental protection and community oversight.

Locally, decisions made by counties, towns, state agencies, and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) are subject to CEQA and would be directly affected by Proposition 45. In the Owens Valley, CEQA has been a crucial tool for public accountability, particularly in holding LADWP to its commitments. For example, the Lower Owens River Project, which aims to restore approximately 60 miles of river, was a direct outcome of a CEQA lawsuit initiated by the Sierra Club and the Owens Valley Committee. More recently, in December, Friends of the Inyo, in partnership with the Sierra Club Range of Light Group and the Owens Valley Indian Water Commission, filed suit over LADWP’s failure to deliver on revegetation commitments at Laws. Opponents contend that Proposition 45 would complicate such accountability for the projects it covers.

The proposition's implications also extend to tribal communities. In Inyo and Mono counties, home to seven federally recognized tribes, and the Mono Lake Kootzaduka’a Tribe, which is not yet federally recognized, tribal consultation is a significant issue. Mono County currently consults with the Mono Lake Kootzaduka’a Tribe under existing state law. However, for projects deemed “essential” under Proposition 45, the requirement for such consultation would no longer apply.

Furthermore, Proposition 45 would reduce the requirement for an alternatives analysis, which assesses whether different project sites or designs could lead to less environmental harm. This reduction is a particular concern in a region like Inyo County, where affordable housing is scarce and wildfire risk is a critical factor in land use decisions.

Advocates for community involvement emphasize that while there is a shared desire for affordable housing and a cleaner energy grid, achieving these goals does not necessitate removing the public from the environmental review process. Opponents of the measure, including Friends of the Inyo, are urging a 'no' vote on Proposition 45.

Ballots were distributed earlier this month to all active registered voters. To ensure your vote is counted, mail your ballot with a postmark no later than November 3, or deposit it at an official drop box or vote center. On Election Day, polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Voters who missed the October 19 registration deadline can still register and cast their ballot at a vote center.