California Enacts Major Rollback Of Landmark Environmental Law

Photo:Wikipedia

India-West News Desk

LOS ANGELES, CA – California lawmakers have approved sweeping changes to the state’s cornerstone environmental law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in a move that environmental and community advocates say prioritizes corporate interests over public health. Embedded in a last-minute budget bill, the changes eliminate full environmental reviews for nine categories of projects, including child care centers, broadband, wildfire prevention, water infrastructure—and most controversially, advanced manufacturing.

According to CalMatters, the law allows high-tech manufacturing facilities to be built in areas already zoned for industrial use without undergoing the usual environmental scrutiny. It also narrows the scope of evidence allowed in CEQA lawsuits and permits limited reviews for projects that narrowly miss qualifying for exemptions.

Governor Gavin Newsom had tied these changes to the approval of the state’s $321 billion budget, telling lawmakers the spending plan would not proceed without them. After the bill passed both chambers with wide margins, Newsom signed it into law.

The new exemption for advanced manufacturing, including semiconductor and nanotechnology facilities, has triggered fierce opposition from over 100 environmental and community organizations. Many argue that the rollback will disproportionately affect lower-income communities, who already face increased exposure to industrial pollution.

Asha Sharma of the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability described the law to CalMatters as “a back-room, last-minute deal” that made the state budget “dependent on gutting environmental review for resource-intensive and polluting industrial projects.” She warned that the changes would not harm all communities equally and called the legislation an attack on neighborhoods already overburdened by industrial activity.

As CalMatters reports, labor groups, including the United Auto Workers, also opposed the measure, citing concerns about toxic work environments and weakened protections for workers and nearby communities. Meanwhile, supporters argue the changes are essential to attract manufacturing investment and accelerate construction to meet the state’s climate and housing goals.