As California voters go to the polls today, they’ll decide whether to approve $10 billion in bonds for climate and environmental projects.
If passed, Proposition 4 would fund projects across the state to safeguard drinking water, combat wildfires, protect natural lands, and improve resilience against floods and extreme heat, but some of the money is also directed toward shorter-term items like job training.
At least 40% of the funds would be spent to benefit communities considered most harmed by climate change and environmental fallout — prioritizing support for populations that might lack the resources to cope with those impacts.
Alfredo Gonzalez, head of the campaign backing the measure, described the financing as a strategic response to the state’s growing environmental threats.
The bond measure would be a down payment aimed at water security, wildfire management, and resilience against intense heat waves, floods and even rising sea levels, he said.
“Unfortunately, the state’s fiscal commitment to our climate challenges has not matched the pace or the scale of the problem,” Gonzalez said. “This is a historic investment in preventative actions.”
The drawback, opponents said, is that bonds are an expensive way to pay for projects, and should only be used on long-term, durable infrastructure.
Paying off the bonds would cost the state about $400 million a year, for a total of $16 billion, according to the state’s nonpartisan legislative analyst. Taking inflation into account, that’s about 10% more than if the state paid for the projects without using debt.
The bond measure lacks specificity and could saddle taxpayers with long-term debt for short-term projects, said State Sen. Brian Jones, the Republican minority leader from San Diego, one of the authors of the official argument against the measure.
“It’s going to take 30 to 40 years to pay this bond back. And look, there’s infrastructure projects I would support that take bonds to finance, but last longer than the actual financing,” Jones said. “The voters … I hope, realize that they are also taxpayers, and they’re voting to put themselves into debt for the next 30 to 40 years.”
While acknowledging the importance of environmental stewardship, Jones said some of the short-lived items in the measure include things such as funding for farmers’ markets, job programs and van pools—in other words, things that aren’t intended to last.
Prop. 4 would authorize the first major environmental bond in California in years. Environmental groups have argued the state needs more financial muscle to address rising climate risks.
Water projects would get the bulk of the money, about $3.8 billion. Half of that portion, $1.9 billion, would be spent on improving water quality, while the rest would be spent on protecting the state from floods and droughts, and other activities, including restoring rivers and lakes.
Learn more about legislators mentioned in this story.
Despite improvements, safe drinking water remains a severe problem across California. Nearly 730,000 people are still served by the 380 water systems that fail to meet state requirements for safe and reliable drinking water. Latino farm communities struggling with poverty and pollution are especially hard-hit.
Funds from the measure would also be directed toward wildfire risk reduction, coastal protection, clean energy initiatives and sustainable agricultural practices.
Prop. 4 made it onto the ballot after an extended legislative debate, with proponents arguing that the measure was essential to maintain and expand environmental investments.
Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature initially approved a $54.3 billion spending package called the “California Climate Commitment” in 2022, only to have to scale it back to $44.6 billion this year amid a budget deficit.
California voters have shown some recent reluctance to fund increased spending via bond measures. California primary voters, for instance, passed Newsom’s $6.4 billion mental health bond on March 5 by the slimmest of margins, 50.2%. That experience, Newsom said during a press conference earlier this year, “sobered, I think, a lot of the conversation up here,” and indicated that he was wary of backing another bond measure after suffering that near setback.
“The public wants to see results,” the governor told reporters during that May conference, before Prop. 4 was put on the ballot. Newsom has not endorsed the measure, and a spokesperson for him declined to say how the governor would vote on it.
A poll last month showed likely California voters supporting the measure, though that support fell from an earlier survey. The Public Policy Institute of California’s October poll showed 60% would vote yes, 38% would vote no and 2% of voters were undecided. That was a slight decline from late August and early September, when the same nonpartisan think tank found 65% of likely voters would vote yes, 33% no and 2% undecided.
Mark Baldassare, survey director at the institute, told CalMatters that the slight erosion in support was typical. For instance, support for Prop. 2 — a $10 billion education fund — dropped from 54% to 52% over that same period.
The findings highlight a common trend.“That often happens in the course of the election, particularly around state propositions,” Baldassare said. “They start out strong, people might hear things that raise doubts, or they start thinking about the whole context of the ballot.”
