Current News

/

ArcaMax

California's Proposition 4 explained: What would the state do with a $10 billion climate cash infusion?

Ari Plachta, The Sacramento Bee on

Published in News & Features

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Approving Proposition 4 on Californians’ ballots would authorize $10 billion in debt for the state to spend on environmental and climate priorities.

The money would be spent on drinking water improvements, flood and drought protection, wildfire and extreme heat projects and clean energy among other issues.

Californians are no stranger to extreme weather brought by climate change. Before Californians saw storms and snowpacks of historic proportions in recent years, the state’s residents experienced a prolonged drought with extreme heat waves in between.

Environmental groups and renewable energy advocates pushed hard for increased spending on climate and environment issues following recent budget cuts.

With state government surpluses turning into shortfalls, they argue this influx of spending is key for the state to meet its ambitious climate goals — even with federal investments in climate and clean energy programs through 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act.

In 2022, Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature approved a $54.3 billion spending package called the “California Climate Commitment” but scaled it back to $44.6 billion this year.

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, about eight in 10 adults and likely voters in the state say climate change is a top concern (26% adults, 24% likely voters) or one of several important concerns (56% adults, 54% likely voters).

What would Proposition 4 do?

If a majority of voters approve Prop. 4 in November, they would authorize $10 billion in state borrowing to spend on climate and environment projects. The money will be repaid with interest annually from the state budget.

The largest chunk would be for water projects such as drinking water and urban recycling. The second largest would fund policies and programs to fight devastating wildfire and extreme heat.

More specifically, here’s where the money will go.

—Water and drought, $3.8 billion: Projects for drinking water quality, groundwater storage, and water recycling. Also includes funding for flood risk reduction, dam safety, and restoration of watersheds and wetlands.

—Wildfire and forest resilience, $1.5 billion: Grants to improve fire prevention and forest health, as well as wildfire ignition detection technology.

—Coastal resilience, $1.2 billion: Sea-level rise adaptation, restoration of kelp forests, removal of obsolete dams, and fish hatchery expansions.

 

—Biodiversity protection, $1.2 billion: Support for fish and wildlife, and tribal nature-based solutions.

—Clean air programs, $850 million: Offshore wind power generation, electricity transmission and long-duration battery storage projects.

—Parks and outdoor access, $700 million: Money supporting outdoor recreation and public access to California’s State Parks system

—Extreme heat mitigation, $450 million: Urban greening, urban forests, strategic “community resilience centers,” and local disaster relief community grants are included in this chunk.

—Climate smart farms and ranches, $300 million: Includes $15 million for low-income farmworker carpools.

Who supports and opposes it?

Supporters include dozens of environmental groups such as Clean Water Action and the National Wildlife Federation. They also include Cal Fire firefighters.

They have raised more than $500,000 in support and say the need for additional spending on these issues is “urgent.”

“Devastating wildfires are burning across California, millions risk losing access to clean drinking water, and last month was our hottest ever. These growing impacts from a changing climate threaten our health, lives, and economy,” said Mike Roth, spokesperson for the Yes on 4 campaign. “Proposition 4 gives voters a choice to shift California from disaster response to prevention.”

The bond’s main opponents are Republican lawmakers and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which argue the bond is too expensive and that California should fund these priorities without more debt.

They have raised no money in opposition to the bond.

_____


©2024 The Sacramento Bee. Visit sacbee.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

 

Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus