The Question

Should voters let the state sell $10 billion in bonds for various projects to reduce climate risks and impacts?

The Situation 

Destructive forest fires, droughts and floods are becoming more common in California. Climate change is impacting farming, water quality, and wildlife. Many people don’t have access to safe drinking water. At the same time, a recent budget deficit led to $9 billion in cuts from programs meant to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas. According to California’s 4^th Climate Assessment (Table 6) the cost of climate change for California could be more than $113 billion annually by 2050 (mostly from human mortality). Climate change affects all Californians, with most impacts hitting those least able to afford countermeasures.

The Proposal

Prop 4 would let the state issue $10 billion in general obligation bonds. The proceeds of the sale of bonds would be allocated as follows:

• $3.8 Billion for Water. To protect and increase state water supply and water quality, reduce flood risk and improve stormwater management, and protect and restore rivers, lakes and streams. 
• $1.5 Billion for Wildfires and Forests. To improve local fire prevention capacity, improve forest health and resilience, and reduce the risk of wildfire spread.
• $1.2 Billion for Coastal Resilience. For coastal and flood management primarily associated with sea-level rise.
• $1.2 Billion for Biodiversity Protection. For grant programs for fish and wildlife, including tribal nature-based climate solutions.
• $850 Million for Clean Air. For offshore wind and expansion of port infrastructure, and projects to support clean energy transmission.
• $700 Million for Parks. For state and neighborhood park creation, expansion, renovation, and maintenance.
• $450 Million for Extreme Heat Mitigation. For grants for urban greening and community resilience centers for cooling and benefits during a disaster.
• $300 Million for Agricultural Lands. To improve the climate resilience and sustainability of agricultural lands, including a series of programs benefiting low-income and historically marginalized groups. 

Some funding would be used to offset budget cuts. Most funding would create loans and grants for:

• Local governments
• Native American tribes
• Non-profit groups
• Businesses
• State-run agencies

Forty percent of funding must go to activities that will help lower-income communities or communities hit the hardest by environmental changes and disasters.

Fiscal Effects

The Legislative Analysts’ Office estimates paying back the bond loan would cost the state $400 million a year for 40 years. However, the bonds would fund projects that reduce future risk and the costs of damage from disasters.

Supporters Say

• California faces growing threats from wildfires, water pollution, extreme heat, and other disasters. The right investments now could help prevent future damage and costs.
• California is already paying a price for failing to prepare for drought and climate change. Prop 4 helps us shift from disaster response to disaster prevention.
• Prop 4 makes efficient, sensible investments in proven solutions

Opponents Say

• The goals identified in Prop 4 should be funded within our current state budget. Taxpayers should not be asked for $10 billion more in the form of a bond that will cost nearly double to repay.
• Prop 4 provides funding for unproven technologies with no real evidence of success.
• Prop 4 lacks fiscal accountability and specific standards for measuring success.

For More Information