California 2023-2024 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB1152

Introduced
2/16/23  
Introduced
2/16/23  
Refer
3/2/23  
Refer
3/2/23  
Report Pass
4/4/23  
Report Pass
4/4/23  
Refer
4/5/23  
Refer
4/5/23  
Refer
4/10/23  
Failed
2/1/24  

Caption

Public agencies: causes of action: local planning and zoning: California Environmental Quality Act.

Impact

The bill introduces substantial changes to how environmental assessments are conducted for projects related to recycled water systems. By exempting these projects from the typical requirements under CEQA, it aims to facilitate faster implementation of necessary measures to address water shortages, particularly in areas under federal or state drought emergencies. Additionally, by staying any timing requirements linked to local zoning and planning decisions during litigation, the bill intends to maintain some degree of stability in the planning process, potentially reducing project delays that have been criticized for exacerbating California's housing crisis.

Summary

Assembly Bill 1152, introduced by Assembly Members Joe Patterson and Megan Dahle, seeks to amend the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by providing specific exemptions for certain recycled water projects aimed at mitigating drought conditions. The bill exempts the construction or expansion of recycled water pipelines from CEQA requirements if these projects meet specific criteria, including location within critically overdrafted groundwater basins. This legislative move is seen as a response to California's ongoing water crisis, where traditional bureaucratic hurdles can delay critical infrastructure projects necessary for water management.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 1152 appears to be generally supportive among those concerned with efficient water management and addressing drought conditions in California. Proponents argue that quick action on recycled water systems is essential for environmental sustainability and community resilience. However, there are concerns among some advocacy groups regarding the reduced oversight from CEQA, which they believe could lead to adverse ecological impacts. As the bill progresses, there may be further debates about balancing expedited development with environmental protection.

Contention

Key points of contention focus on the potential for reduced oversight and the implications for local governance. Critics argue that exempting these projects from CEQA could set a precedent for undermining environmental protections, leading to unchecked development that may harm local ecosystems. Additionally, there are implications for local agencies tasked with zoning and planning, as the bill centralizes control over important water management decisions at the state level, potentially limiting local authority and input in these matters. This dynamic may further highlight tensions between state-level initiatives and local governance structures.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB2117

Development permit expirations: actions or proceedings.

CA AB1771

Planning and zoning: cause of action: time limitations.

CA SB55

California Environmental Quality Act: housing and land use.

CA SB950

California Environmental Quality Act: housing and land use.

CA SB789

California Environmental Quality Act: sports and entertainment project.

CA AB3005

Leroy Anderson Dam and Reservoir: permitting, environmental review, and public contracting.

CA SB785

Public resources: parklands, freshwater resources, and coastal resources: off-highway motor vehicles: public lands.

CA AB734

California Environmental Quality Act: Oakland Sports and Mixed-Use Project.