By Kat Keniston
SACRAMENTO — A controversial plan to weaken California’s landmark environmental law is sparking intense backlash—not only for its contents, but for the way it’s being forced into law.
Provisions from Senate Bill 607, which would gut key elements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), have been quietly repackaged into SB 131, a budget “trailer bill” that is now tied to the passage of the entire $321 billion state budget. The move has been widely condemned by environmental justice advocates, community groups, and labor unions as a blatant abuse of power.
“What’s happening here is not just anti-environment—it’s anti-democratic,” said Asha Sharma, state policy manager at the Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability. “Californians have been shut out of a process that directly affects their health, safety, and futures.”
CEQA requires state and local agencies to analyze and disclose the environmental impacts of major projects, offering communities a powerful tool to challenge polluting developments—from warehouses and oil refineries to freeways and rail yards. It has been especially vital for low-income neighborhoods and communities of color disproportionately affected by industrial activity.
The original version of SB 607 sought to weaken CEQA by raising the bar for requiring full environmental impact reports, narrowing the scope of environmental review, and shielding internal agency records from public scrutiny. Facing intense opposition and an uncertain path in the Legislature, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic leaders instead inserted its language into SB 131, a trailer bill linked to the broader budget package.
To critics, the maneuver amounts to a poison pill: if lawmakers reject SB 131, they also derail the state budget. The strategy gives CEQA rollbacks political cover while minimizing public debate.
“This is a deliberate end-run around the public,” said J.P. Rose, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Environmental review is often the only chance residents have to raise concerns before damage is done. To bury this in a must-pass budget bill is legislative malpractice.”
Trailer bills typically bypass the normal legislative process, including policy committee vetting and stakeholder testimony. Instead, they are fast-tracked with minimal hearings and can be enacted with just 72 hours’ notice. That makes them a powerful—and increasingly controversial—tool for pushing through politically sensitive measures.
“If SB 607’s proposals were truly viable, they’d be debated on the floor and in public view,” said Aleja Maria Cretcher of Communities for a Better Environment. “The fact that they had to be hidden in SB 131 says everything.”
Labor organizations have joined the outcry, warning that CEQA rollbacks could accelerate hazardous projects in working-class communities already overburdened by pollution and lacking in political clout.
“This is a gift to developers at the expense of public health,” said Mario Yedidia of UNITE HERE. “It’s not just cynical—it’s dangerous.”
For residents in frontline communities, the move is particularly galling. Many say CEQA is the only tool they have to influence what gets built in their neighborhoods. Without it, toxic projects could be rubber-stamped with no meaningful input from the people most affected.
“This is exactly what government shouldn’t do,” Sharma said. “Sweeping environmental policy should be debated transparently—not smuggled into a backroom budget deal.”
With the June 30 budget deadline imminent, opponents are urging lawmakers to strip the CEQA provisions from SB 131 and return the matter to the public legislative process.
“California claims to be a leader on climate and public participation,” said Rose. “If we let this happen, we’re setting fire to both.”
