Talk:California Environmental Quality Act

California High‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of San Francisco supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 15:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback

I'm bad at citation editing in Wikipedia (side effect of having graduated college PRE INTERNET!!!) but, the cites to the CEQA law and CEQA Guidelines cover a lot of the content, including all my recent (minor-ish) edits (I hope). At any rate, wanted to suggest a new section be added to discuss the 2015 expansion of Tribal consultation requirements under CEQA per AB 52 (see, e.g., https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_AB_52_Presentation_Discussion_Draft.pdf) I'll do it if I get time. But I mostly edit from my iPad & it is NOT FUN to use for any major editing work. I'll propose the additions here once I do get around to it. Thanks!!! Cynthisa (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs citations - I can't tell where the information comes from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your partner group providing feedback on the article. Cammauf1 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Lead agency is used frequently and should be simplified under "lead agency" 3.1.2 later in article has a good def- The lead agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for approving a proposed project. The lead agency determines which type of environmental document will be prepared (MND, EIR, etc.) and has discretion to adopt significance criteria more conservative than those required by CEQA.[22] Maybe this definition can be used or consolidated.[reply]

All the information on GHG (near the beginning) seems to take priority in the article. Later under "Environmental Impact Report" we have "According to case law, the requirement to prepare an EIR is "the heart of CEQA." It may be better to focus on the central understanding of CEQA, then expand on the details.

Brandon and Nick - Nice work here, I thought you might want to try moving the "sources of impact" up higher in your article as it seems to point to what needs to be regulated (where GHG's are coming from). Then keeping the mitigation at the end it kind of wraps things up... Just a thought. Great first paragraph under why - you sum things up well here. Stop by our article site and let us know what you think Entergy v. Riverkeeper cheers - Gil Gbfalcone (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California Environmental Quality Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405110905/http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/ to http://www.ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California Environmental Quality Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401150116/http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ to http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point of View is not Neutral

The second paragraph should be removed because it does mot maintain a neutral point of view. CEQA has been abused some, but it has also provided great environmental benefits. See https://ceqaworks.org. It is, for example, controversial whether using CEQA for other than environmental purposes is "abuse." Deanraff (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well sourced information explaining how it could/has been abused is relevant and neutral. It doesn't mean you cannot add additional benefits of the act. And ceqaworks.org probably is not a RS.--VViking_TalkEdits 22:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article has issues with neutrality, but I think that adding additional sources discussing CEQA benefits would have the same issue.

It may be best to rephrase the introduction and streamline the "criticisms" section to acknowledge that CEQA abuse is an on-going contention without so many individual examples. Philipmichaelangelo (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deanraff and @Philipmichaelangelo: I see you both are very new editors. Neutral Point of View is NOT what most new editors think it is. WP:NPOV: "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If CEQA makes the news more frequently for its abuses and problems and not much for when it functions properly and as expected, than that's what the article will reflect. As an easy extreme example, when an airline successfully and safely transports millions of passengers per year, but one plane crash is extensively reported on. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly how to feed back to Wikipedia in a way that would result in change, but yes, the article is extremely biased against CEQA. I actually added a sentence to the second paragraph some months ago to make to more neutral, but someone took it out. The fastest way to fix this article is to simply eliminate the second two paragraphs until a more balanced text is offered; the rest of the information is pretty factual and useful. If instead, people feel they have to write something "in response" to those paragraphs, requiring a lot of labor, and meanwhile, the misleading paragraphs remain, it is simply another example of someone tossing out easy and not-too-truthful statements, and making others rebut them. Better to remain silent on people's opinions of CEQA, especially when they are uncited. As for the "criticisms" section later, that is, of course, even worse, and unconscionable without counterbalance by CEQA advocates. Numerous special interest groups actually PAY people to try to destroy CEQA by writing things like this, but regular people who benefit from a good urban environment have to respond on their own time--which they cannot do. Paid propaganda usually wins. Trytobetruthteller (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate Characterization of Environmental Impact Analysis

Would anyone have any objections to clarifying the Environmental Impact Analysis section of the article? The first statement "The lead agency must analyze project impacts to 18 different environmental resource factors detailed in Appendix G during their CEQA review." is misleading.

Not only has Appendix G been updated (I believe there are 20 sections now), but CEQA is unique in that it characterizes the environment and environmental impacts quite broadly. Agencies aren't required to use Appendix G, and environmental issues that aren't listed in the checklist may still come up in the process. Philipmichaelangelo (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One problem this article has is that much of that information is not sourced. It would be helpful if you clarified that as you suggest, as long as you include the sources that someone can use to verify that those added/updated tatements are true. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 20:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]