Comments
STATE WATCH - In a bitter twist of political irony, California’s own “Big Ugly Bill” was jammed through the Legislature at the same moment Donald Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” was being debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
Governor Gavin Newsom and the Legislature pushed through AB/SB 131, a budget trailer bill that guts the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), greenlighting polluting industries and destructive development while removing transparency, community rights, and local government control. Tied to the state budget and rushed through with no meaningful debate, this sweeping rollback was passed under threat of stalling California's financial plan.
Normally, before a big project is approved, there has to be a public report showing what it might do to the environment and neighborhoods. This bill takes away that step—leaving people in the dark until it’s too late.
In a rebuke of democratic norms and environmental safeguards, more than 100 environmental justice, conservation, public health, and community organizations rallied to sign a joint letter opposing the bill, calling AB/SB 131 “the worst anti-environmental legislation in recent memory.” They warn that the law will silence public voices, accelerate pollution in overburdened communities, and greenlight massive industrial developments without examining how a project might damage the environment or put people at risk.
Proponents claim the bill advances housing and climate goals. But these claims fall apart under scrutiny.
The new law not only allows housing projects—but entire categories of industrial development—to skip the step where the government checks if a project will pollute the air, harm wildlife, or hurt communities. This includes polluting facilities such as lithium battery plants and semiconductor factories. In Santa Clara County, similar facilities created 23 active federal Superfund sites due to severe toxic contamination. These are the kinds of projects AB/SB 131 will now allow without environmental scrutiny.
The bill also opens the door for sprawl. One provision allows 20-acre housing developments to bypass environmental review if sited in so-called "infill" areas—a term stretched so broadly under the bill that even suburban fringe developments could qualify. Another provision blocks agencies from considering the "growth-inducing impacts" of development, essentially legalizing the kind of unchecked sprawl that the bill’s proponents claim to oppose.
The legislative process itself was alarming.
The bill dropped on a Friday and passed the following Monday. Legislators were handed a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum: approve the sweeping environmental health and safety rollback or stall the entire state budget. The public had virtually no time to respond. Yet in that one brief window during the Budget Committee’s hearing, dozens of voices from impacted communities rose in protest.
One speaker directly challenged Budget Chair Senator Scott Wiener’s repeated claim that CEQA killed a housing project in San Francisco—a talking point he often invokes to justify gutting the law. “That project had seismic issues,” she said. “It was financing that killed it, not CEQA.” She continued: “This bill is an unprecedented rollback of California's fundamental environmental and community protections. It will expose vulnerable communities to toxic industrial projects with zero protection. That’s where a lot of poor people live, just so you know.”
Still, Wiener kicked off the vote by blaming cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Palo Alto for sprawl and habitat loss, claiming they make it too hard to build housing. It’s an outrageous claim that ignores the rich biodiversity in urban spaces—from creeks and oak woodlands to chaparral—and dismisses the importance of neighborhood-scale environmental protections. His comments reveal a deep misunderstanding of where nature exists and why CEQA matters.
CEQA is not a housing killer — it's California's Environmental and Public Health Bill of Rights.
According to the coalition CEQA Works fewer than 2% of projects are ever challenged under CEQA. Most housing in California is already exempted from environmental review. The myth that CEQA blocks housing is a manufactured talking point. In reality, CEQA has helped Californians secure cleaner air, safer development, and better-designed projects at minimal cost.
A bill that is waiting for its Erin Brockovich moment.
Veteran CEQA attorney Corey Brown warned during public comment that AB/SB 131 could enable new toxic industries in low-income neighborhoods because it redefines “advanced manufacturing” so broadly that even marginal changes in industrial technology could let companies skip long-standing requirements to show whether their projects will pollute or harm nearby communities. Brown said plainly: “If this bill had been law years ago, a hazardous waste incinerator proposed in the City of Vernon might have been built—right next to homes.” The kind of industry it protects once poisoned communities so badly they made a movie about it.
Meanwhile, California YIMBY’s communications director continued to spin fiction. On a recent radio segment, he repeated talking points that CEQA blocks bike lanes and climate action—without providing a single concrete example. He dismissed public participation as a “random neighbor’s heckler veto,” arguing that out-of-town developers know better than impacted residents. This anti-democratic rhetoric is exactly why CEQA exists: to ensure ordinary people have a say when powerful interests seek to install projects in their neighborhoods.
Let’s be clear: labeling community members as “NIMBYs” is a tactic meant to silence and shame those defending their homes, parks, health, and heritage. American novelist and farmer Wendell Berry described this framing as the “NIMBY lie.” It denies the reality of interdependence and allows developers and polluters to ignore the consequences of their actions. Berry reminds us that rejecting a bad project in your “backyard” can be an act of solidarity, not selfishness—because what happens in any community eventually affects us all.
AB/SB 131 also legalizes government secrecy. By allowing agencies to exclude internal emails and documents from the administrative record, it will be harder for the public to uncover wrongdoing or demand accountability.
If this were only about housing, the rollback would still be harmful. But this is about much more. It fast-tracks polluting industries, weakens wildfire planning, enables sprawl, and shields agencies from transparency. And it does so under the false banner of equity and sustainability.
California’s Big Ugly Bill isn’t a housing solution — it’s a giveaway to developers and polluters at the expense of democracy, climate, and public health.
The public deserves better than backroom deals, silenced communities, and headlines that repeat falsehoods. As one public commenter put it: “Don’t use the federal government as your example.” California shouldn’t copy Washington’s worst habits — especially when it claims to stand for transparency, equity, and environmental justice.
If Governor Newsom truly opposes the erosion of democratic norms and environmental harms, he should start by ending his own administration’s assault on democracy, environmental health, and local control.
(Diana Nicole is an ecological horticulture expert known for blending science and design in sustainable landscaping. With clients including The Walt Disney Company, she has over 20 years of experience serving major developers and nonprofits. She now focuses on fire-resistant gardens that support biodiversity in fire-prone areas.)
