State’s environmental review process flawed

Pasadena Star News

By: Cynthia Kurtz

Posted 8/21/2013 

There was an interesting story about the California High Speed Rail Authority in the news this week. Unless you are a policy wonk you may not have paid any attention to the details. The story wasn’t about the merits of the project or whether high speed rail is California’s future or a complete folly. 

This story was about the environmental review requirements for the project. The California High Speed Rail Authority filed a brief in a recent court case claiming that they were not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. Instead they claim the project need only comply with the federal environmental laws called National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.

Just to be very clear, the California High Speed Rail Authority’s board of directors is made up of nine members, five of whom are appointed by the Governor, two by the Senate Committee on Rules, and two by the Speaker of the Assembly. It is a state board appointed to oversee a state project, yet they claim to be exempt from state rules.

You may be wondering why I think this is even a little bit interesting. Isn’t it just one more esoteric court battle? I think the Authority’s action is a very public demonstration about what businesses throughout the state have been saying for years: CEQA is no longer about protecting the environment.  

While some opponents of the Authority’s action claim that NEPA is less stringent review process, the requirements for protecting the environment are the same. Environmental standards are set in federal laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Clear Water Act. They must be met regardless of whether it is through a NEPA or CEQA review.

What CEQA adds to environmental requirements is the ability to slow down a project by raising frivolous questions until the project runs out of money, the ability to keep lawyers busy filing claims even if they don’t have a client, the chance for unions to hold a project hostage until a union forces a project labor agreement, and the opportunity for a competitor to thwart its competition. NEPA doesn’t afford project opponents these options.

If the state’s own projects can’t be built efficiently under CEQA, maybe there is a problem with CEQA. One would hope that the Legislature would watch what their appointed board is doing and perhaps be thinking that something should be done.  

Legislation claiming to be CEQA reform is working its way through the Senate now in the form SB 731, authored by Senator Steinberg. Business, housing and local government leaders say the bill does not reform CEQA and in fact makes it harder to approve responsible projects.  

Senator Steinberg says the bill will encourage and expand in-fill development and reduce urban sprawl. They are noble goals but not CEQA reform.

Stay tuned. This battle is far from over.