The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been used to hinder development plans in the state and Santa Cruz County over the years.

Most recently, opponents to expansion plans for the Santa Cruz Wharf used CEQA as the basis for a lawsuit alleging, among other provisions, that the Wharf Master Plan was not in compliance with the law.

After the wharf partially collapsed in December, the group that filed the suit was blamed by critics for stalling needed maintenance and repairs, which they said contributed to a 150-foot section at the end of the wharf falling away.

But it’s mostly housing where CEQA, in place for 55 years, has been targeted.

It’s no secret that the high cost of housing in this county and throughout the state is not helped by local permitting policies and the many tacked-on fees new developments have faced, although this is changing as state laws are loosening the hold local policies have on builders. Still, building throughout California is expensive — nearly three times as pricey as Texas, for instance.

A recent survey on housing costs by RAND, a Santa Monica think tank, found that projects for low-income families cost 1.5 times as much to build as market-rate housing in California and four times the average cost in Texas.

One reason is that it has taken so long to get projects approved. A privately financed apartment building that takes just over two years to produce from start to finish in Texas would take over four years in California.

Most of the differences stem from policy choices made by state and local governments, according to the RAND report. Many are legacies of the “slow growth movement,” which has shaped housing production in the state since the 1980s and dominated planning in Santa Cruz County.

So it’s dismaying that the California State Senate last week seemingly allowed housing development to remain difficult and costly, gutting a bill aimed at making it easier by exempting some projects from CEQA to build housing for lower-income families.

Senate Bill 607 was left adrift this week in the Senate Appropriations Committee, apparently because Senate leaders, wrote CalMatters columnist Dan Walters, caved into fierce opposition from environmental groups and labor unions. The committee announced that SB 607’s contents were being stripped out and replaced by vague language declaring intentions to negotiate further, leaving the fate of the proposal unclear.

The Senate bill, along with Assembly Bill 609, the companion legislation, were supported by Gov. Gavin Newsom and would exempt most “infill” housing developments, projects built in or next to existing developments, from review under CEQA. The law requires governments to study the environmental impact of any decisions they make, including the approval of new housing. Anyone or any group — unions, environmental advocates or neighborhood groups, to name a few — can challenge the validity of those studies, and delay approval — often using CEQA as a tool to oppose housing projects on environmental grounds.

CEQA was used locally by opponents to attempt to stop a UC Santa Cruz housing development and to oppose the university’s Long Range Development Plan that would increase student enrollment by more than 8,000 students by 2040.

Newsom at the time spoke out about CEQA-based lawsuits stopping housing development, filing a court brief that said CEQA should not be used to block “necessary progress or to deny to others safe, healthy and affordable housing.” He subsequently signed an executive order intended to limit the time opponents can obstruct projects, including infrastructure improvements, with challenges under CEQA.

We support what the RAND report recommends: That California emulate a Texas law giving local governments just 30 days to approve or reject projects to reduce the 22-month average processing time, to reduce mandatory fees, and to consider modifying strict energy efficiency requirements.

And that legislators back up the governor and limit the scope of CEQA in blocking necessary housing.