Prop. 45 puts California's environmental protections at risk. Voters, say no | Opinion

By Bill Magavern

October 28, 2026 5:00 AM

Buried in your voter information guide are 17 pages of legalese describing how Proposition 45 would rewrite California’s most important environmental law. Most voters won’t read the details. Proponents claim all the measure does is speed up the environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act.

In reality, Prop. 45 would dismantle the environmental review process for a long list of project types, many of which put clean air, clean water, coastlines, wildlife and public health at risk. Yes, Prop 45 creates aggressive timelines for cities, counties and the courts for projects like data centers, warehouses near homes, forest clear-cutting and sprawl housing.

But it also removes the requirement for government agencies to consider less harmful locations for projects. It would make it far more difficult to effectively enforce laws like the California Endangered Species Act and the Coastal Act for projects covered by the measure. Prop. 45 also makes it almost impossible for the Legislature to amend the measure if problems with its implementation arise.

This is arguably the worst time to dramatically weaken California’s strongest environmental and public health protection law. President Donald Trump is aggressively rolling back safeguards for clean air, clean water, coastlines and endangered species. If voters imagine they are protected from federal efforts to gut essential protections, they should think again. If Prop 45 passes, the Golden State will be vulnerable to air and water pollution, data center booms, and rapid habitat loss as any other state.

When it comes to data centers, leaders in Sacramento passed a suite of bills aimed at ensuring communities have a voice in their development and protections from impacts like heavy water use and spiking electricity bills. These new laws respond to growing concerns about the rapid growth of data centers in Sacramento and across the state. If Prop. 45 passes, those protections will mostly be overridden by the lax public oversight promised by the ballot measure. The data center developers and for-profit utilities like PG&E, which have all invested heavily in the campaign to pass Prop 45, will sigh with relief if voters approve it.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that implementing the measure could cost $100 million or more a year. But the public could face much higher costs if Prop. 45 passes. By making it easier to build risky projects with fewer safeguards, the measure could leave taxpayers footing the bill for more cleanups.

Consider the publicly funded cleanup of widespread lead contamination left by the now-bankrupt Exide battery recycling facility in Los Angeles County. Taxpayers have already paid nearly $1 billion, and the job still isn’t done. It cost taxpayers $1.3 billion to clean up after 2018 Napa and Sonoma wildfires. When projects are built with weaker public oversight, they are more likely to cause harm in the long run. Meanwhile, there is nothing in Prop. 45’s text that guarantees lower costs for everyday Californians.

There is a moral case against exposing communities already burdened by pollution to even more of it. For families living near freeways, warehouses and industrial sites, the environmental review process is often the only tool they have to protect themselves and their children.

More than 550 groups, including the American Lung Association, the League of Women Voters and the National Wildlife Federation are locking arms to oppose Prop 45. Voters should reject it.

Bill Magavern is policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air.