CEQA Was Written to Protect Communities, Not to Extort Them
The California Environmental Quality Act was signed into law in 1970. Its purpose was straightforward: require state and local agencies to identify and disclose the environmental impacts of their decisions, and consider alternatives and mitigation measures before approving projects with significant effects. It was an accountability tool — designed to make government decision-making transparent and to give communities a meaningful voice in projects that would affect their environment.
Fifty-five years later, CEQA is something else entirely in many of its applications. It is, by documented evidence, one of the primary mechanisms through which opponents block, delay, and financially burden development projects regardless of their actual environmental impact. And in Imperial County, the effort to force the IVDC into a CEQA review process it is legally exempt from is a case study in exactly this misuse.
How the Exemption Works — and Why It Applies
CEQA applies to discretionary approvals — decisions that require a government agency to exercise judgment about whether to approve a project and under what conditions. It does not apply to ministerial approvals — decisions that are required by law when a project meets the applicable standards. This distinction is foundational to the statute.
The IVDC received a ministerial approval because it is a conforming use on I-2 Heavy Industrial land. The county was not exercising discretion when it approved the project; it was performing a ministerial act required by the zoning code. No discretion, no CEQA. The Superior Court affirmed this analysis in February 2026 when it dismissed the city’s complaint as legally insufficient.
The city’s strategy was to argue that the project should have required a CUP — transforming a ministerial approval into a discretionary one, and thereby opening the CEQA door. The court said no. But the attempt itself illustrates the tactic: use the threat of CEQA review to impose delay and cost on a project the opposition cannot defeat on the merits.
The Cost of Manufactured CEQA Exposure
CEQA litigation is not cheap or fast. An Environmental Impact Report for a project the scale of the IVDC could cost several million dollars to prepare. The process takes 18-36 months minimum. Legal challenges to the EIR add additional years and costs. During all of that time, the project cannot break ground, the financing sits idle accumulating carrying costs, and the developer faces the choice of continuing to absorb those costs or abandoning the project.
This is what manufactured CEQA exposure accomplishes even when it ultimately fails in court. It imposes real financial damage during the litigation period. The opposition understands this. The strategy is not primarily about winning the CEQA argument in court — it is about making the cost of proceeding too high for the developer to sustain.
For a $10 billion project with institutional financing, that calculation is different than it would be for a smaller developer. But the principle applies at every scale: CEQA litigation without merit is not environmentalism. It is a financial weapon being deployed against a community that needs this project.
What Legitimate Environmental Review Would Show
The irony of the effort to force CEQA review on the IVDC is that a good-faith environmental analysis would likely reach favorable conclusions for the project. The closed-loop recycled wastewater system eliminates the water consumption concerns that opponents cite. The dedicated substation means grid impacts are not socialized to other ratepayers. The battery storage system improves grid stability. The I-2 industrial site is surrounded by industrial land uses, not residential communities.
The opposition is not pursuing CEQA review because they believe the environmental analysis will validate their concerns. They are pursuing it because the process itself — regardless of the outcome — serves their interests. That is the definition of weaponization.
California needs CEQA reform precisely because this pattern is so well-established and so damaging. Projects that would benefit the communities they are built in — particularly in economically distressed regions that cannot afford to wait for investment — are being delayed and defeated by environmental review processes that have nothing to do with environmental protection. Imperial Valley is paying the price of that failure right now.
