Proposition 4: Where would California spend $10 billion on climate change?

Democratic leaders in late June reached an agreement to place a $10 billion bond on the ballot to pay for climate change impacts following cuts to state climate programs in recent years.

In pushing the ballot measure, Sen. Ben Allen, an El Segundo Democrat, said in a statement: “We are already seeing the devastating effects of climate change — more extreme heat waves, catastrophic fires and floods, coastal erosion, and severe droughts.” 

The bond issue would allow the state to borrow $3.8 billion for drinking water and groundwater programs, $1.5 billion for wildfire and forest programs and $1.2 billion for sea level rise. In part, the money would offset some budget cuts.

What would it do?

Approving Proposition 4 would authorize $10 billion in debt to spend on environmental and climate projects, with the biggest chunk —$1.9 billion — for drinking water improvements. The bond prioritizes lower-income communities, and those most vulnerable to climate change, and requires annual audits.

Repaying the money could cost $400 million a year over 40 years, a legislative analysis said, meaning taxpayers could spend $16 billion.

Why is it on the ballot?

Environmental groups and renewable energy advocates have been clamoring for increased spending on climate change and the environment in recent years, particularly after Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature approved a $54.3 billion spending package called the California Climate Commitment in 2022, only to scale it back to $44.6 billion this budget-plagued year.

Where would the money be spent?

About $3.8 billion would be spent on water projects — half to improve water quality, the remainder on protecting the state from floods and droughts, and other activities, including restoring rivers and lakes.

The rest of the money would be spent on the following:

• wildfire and extreme heat projects, $1.95 billion
• natural lands, parks and wildlife projects, $1.9 billion
• coastal lands, bays and ocean protection, $1.2 billion
• clean energy projects, $850 million
• agricultural projects, $300 million

Proponents

Supporters argue that, given the threat the state faces from wildfires, water pollution and extreme heat, the need for more spending on these issues is “urgent.” Dozens of environmental groups are backing the measure.

Opponents

Opponents argue that “bonds are the most expensive way for the government to pay for things” and that some of the money could go toward unproven technologies. They say that California should pay for such projects without taking on more debt.

Funders

Some $1.2 million has been raised promoting the ballot initiative, all of it in support of the measure.

More information

Additional information about California’s other propositions can be found here.