> Without environmental impact reports it's likely that there would be nearly no natural land left in California. I don't think we rely purely on impact statem

> Without environmental impact reports it's likely that there would be nearly no natural land left in California. I don't think we rely purely on impact statements for this, there's plenty of parks / nature reserves where building is simply not allowed. And of course zoning heavily restricts what can go on land where building is allowed. I believe (and another comment mentions here) the California law is unusual because it allows private groups to request additional reviews in addition to the government environmental regulators. And as a result of this, groups that oppose projects for non-environmental reasons will take advantage of the complex environmental impact process to drag out anything they don't like. So a straightforward change would be to leave the environmental review to government agencies and not private groups. To me it seems like it would make more sense to address these issues at a regional level - like apartment buildings can go here, houses can go here, and looking at the general impact that those developments would have - instead of doing a very protracted process on a per-project level. At least for common things like housing, maybe not chemical factories. Maybe someone who is more familiar with public policy around urban planning can weigh in on how other locations address these problems and if California's approach here makes any sense, or if it is just some unintended consequence of laws that were maybe a little too broadly-written.