Cynthia Murray of the North Bay Leadership Council, in her oped of January 20, 2013 (Marin Voice: Time to modernize CEQA so it is used properly), purports to speak for what “most people” want, saying “Most people would agree that if a school, hospital or road project has been subjected to extensive environmental review and met all federal, state and local environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act, the project should go forward without being sued for purported environmental reasons.”
If this were the case, then there would be no need for the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its provisions for citizen
enforcement. The laws she refers to are
all Federal laws (which, incidentally have their own citizen enforcement
provisions), all laudable but narrowly defined.
CEQA, on the other hand, is broad-based and covers a multitude of
environmental requirements for anything considered a “project” under its
terms.
This includes the impact on traffic, neighborhood character,
visual and aesthetic properties, archeological qualities of a site, and many
more.
Development and big business interests have been trying to
gut CEQA for years in the name of “reform.’” Some recent changes include SB 226 in 2011 which streamlined the
process for infill housing projects if they can demonstrate that they adhere to
other environmental laws.
To call for more changes without even specifying what they
are, as Murray does in her call for “modernization” appears to be nothing more
than a ploy to further erode the citizen enforcement provisions of what is a
landmark environmental law.
As Murray herself points out, (citing an undated report by
the Thomas Law Group) courts reject 50% of all projects challenged under CEQA. That
means 50% of the cases are
successful. And this represents only the
published cases. A very small percentage
of any cases are published or even appealed in California. Yet even so, the fact that 50% of
published cases, those that are appealed
and deemed important enough to be published by the appellate court, are decided
in favor of challengers should tell us
something and it’s not that the law needs to be changed. It’s that it’s
working. If a local or state
governmental agency is not doing its job by approving projects that do not
comply with California’s environment all regulations, we need an informed and
active populace to make sure they do.
Laws like CEQA insure that can happen.
CEQA doesn’t necessarily stop all such projects, but it
makes the jurisdiction follow the law, and the project proponents perform
needed mitigation measures, before approval takes place. If not, the average citizen has the right to
file a lawsuit, and if they win, to have their attorneys fees and costs reimbursed. Without those provisions, there
would be little incentive for developers or bureaucrats to do the right thing.
What Murray and others representing development and big
business interests want is for no citizen review under CEQA when
“a project has met all required state, federal and local environmental
laws, regulations and planning, zoning and land-use requirements…” But who is
to make that determination, if the citizens lose their rights under CEQA?
Instead of weakening and further “modernizing” a law that is
working quite well for the citizens and the environment in California, we
should be invested in protecting it and strengthening other environmental
protections and regulations that ultimately lead to better projects, smarter
development and a cleaner, healthier environment for all.
