Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
One of the most striking and differentiating features of CEQA compared
with all other programs is the length and detail of the legislation and
implementing regulations. Over 450 dense pages, which seem to cover any
potential specific situation that could be encountered, sometimes seem over-
whelming. For example, there are specific regulations and procedures if a
project affects an oak woodlands system (§21083.4). Among other require-
ments, if the project could affect such an ecosystem, the affected county must
require one or more of the following mitigation alternatives or measures:
r Conserve oak woodlands through the use of conservation easements.
r Plant an appropriate number of trees, including maintaining plant-
ing and replacing dead or diseased trees.
r Planting shall not fulfill more than half the mitigation requirement.
r Contribute funds to the Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund.
California has legislated one of, if not, the most demanding and restric-
tive environmental policies and associated regulations. This has produced
enhanced environmental protection and sustainability but also opposition
to CEQA. The major complaint is the potential to slow development and
economic growth both through the constraints contained in the Act and
complexity and expense of the required procedures. However, a case can
certainly be made that these complaints are exaggerated because California's
population and associated economic growth in the first decade since the pas-
sage of the Act doubled, which would be the envy of any other development-
oriented state.
8.7 Summary
Most international and U.S. state (with California as an exception) environ-
mental legislation or regulatory efforts began with some version of “NEPA
Light.” They generally maintained the NEPA concept of limiting jurisdiction
to actions by the government, including funding, construction, land use, and
permitting. Many countries and states observed the frequent litigation and
resulting significant delays in project implementation resulting from NEPA
in the early years and purposefully crafted their environmental controls to
preempt litigation or failed to enact comprehensive environmental analysis
policies. Avoiding litigation was sometimes accomplished by administra-
tion procedures, rather than legislation, to require environmental analysis. In
other programs, environmental review was included in existing legislation to
minimize litigation and project delays. Where this occurred, the approaches
frequently limited enforcement, consistency, and effectiveness resulting in
Search WWH ::
Custom Search