• Authorizes $10 billion in state general
obligation bonds for various projects to reduce
climate risks and impacts: $3.8 billion for safe
drinking water and water resilience; $1.95
billion for wildfire prevention and extreme heat
mitigation; $1.9 billion for protection of natural
lands, parks, and wildlife; $1.2 billion for
protection of coastal lands, bays, and oceans;
$850 million for clean energy; and $300 million
for agriculture.
•
Prioritizes projects benefitting disadvantaged
communities.
•
Requires annual audits.
• Appropriates money from General Fund to
repa
y bonds.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE
OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL
IMPACT:
• Increased state costs of about $400 million
annually for 40 years to repa
y the bond.
24 | Title and Summar y / Analysis
PROPOSITION AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE
PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL
LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.4
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BACKGROUND
State Pays for Natural Resources and Climate
Activities. The state pays for many activities
aimed at conserving natural resources, as well
as responding to the causes and effects of
climate change (“natural resources and climate
activities”). These activities focus on increasing
the amount of water available for use, conserving
land to benefit fish and wildlife, increasing
recreational opportunities at state and local
parks, and other purposes. In some cases, state
government agencies perform natural resources
and climate activities. In other cases, the state
provides grants and loans to local governments,
not-for-profit organizations, and businesses to
support similar activities.
State Pays for Natural Resources and Climate
Activities in Various Ways. Sometimes the state
pays up front for natural resources and climate
activities with money it already has. In other
cases, the state pays for these activities by using
bonds. Bonds are a way that the state borrows
money and then repays the money plus interest
over time. (For more information about bonds,
please see “Overview of State Bond Debt” later in
this guide.)
Over the past decade, the state has spent an
average of about $13 billion each year (annually)
on natural resources and climate activities. About
15 percent of this amount has been from bonds.
The state still has a few billion dollars remaining
from prior natural resources and climate bonds
that have not yet been committed for specific
activities.
Local and Federal Governments Also Pay
for Similar Activities. In addition to the state
funding, other entities also pay for natural
resources and climate activities. For example,
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
The text of this measure can be found on page 75 and the Secretary of State’s website at voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
4 State Bond Cost Estimate
Amount borrowed $10 billion
A
verage repayment cost
$400 million
per year over
40 years
S
ource of repayment
General tax
revenue
FINAL VOTES CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON SB 867 (PROPOSITION 4) (CHAPTER 83, STATUTES OF 2024)
Senate: Ayes 33 Noes 6
Assembly: Ayes 66 Noes 6
Attachment 5
For the full text of Proposition 4, see page 75. Analysis | 25
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST CONTINUED
in some areas, local governments pay for water
and energy infrastructure as part of their roles
as local utilities. Local governments such as
cities and counties also pay for local parks. The
federal government also pays for various natural
resources and climate activities. For example, the
federal government provides money to improve
local drinking water systems and to build energy
infrastructure.
PROPOSAL
New Bond for Natural Resources and Climate
Activities. Proposition 4 allows the state to sell a
$10 billion bond for natural resources and climate
activities. Much of the bond money would be used
for loans and grants to local governments, Native
American tribes, not-for-profit organizations, and
businesses. Some bond money also would be
available for state agencies to spend on state-run
activities.
Funding Would Pay for a Variety of Activities.
As shown in Figure 1, Proposition 4 pays for
activities within eight broad categories, each with
different goals. Some of the main activities in each
category are summarized below:
AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE
PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL
LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.
PROPOSITION
4 4
26 | Analysis
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST CONTINUED
• Drought, Flood, and Water Supply
($3.8 Billion). Roughly half of this money would
be for activities to increase the amount and
quality of water available for people to use
($1.9 billion). This would include storing water
so it can be used during future droughts, as well
as cleaning polluted water to make it safe to
drink. Money would also be used to help reduce
the risk of floods, such as by repairing dams
and capturing and reusing stormwater ($1.1
billion). The rest of the money would be used
for various activities, such as restoring rivers
and lakes.
• Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention
($1.5 Billion). All of this money would support
activities to improve the health of forests and
reduce the risk of severe and destructive
wildfires. This would include thinning trees
in forests that are overgrown and clearing
vegetation near where people live. Money
would also be used for other activities, such
as helping homeowners make their properties
more resistant to wildfire damage.
• Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Areas ($1.2 Billion).
Most of this money would pay for activities to
restore coastal areas and protect them from the
effects of rising sea levels ($890 million). This
could include restoring wetlands so they can
serve as buffers to rising sea levels. The rest
of this money would be used to improve ocean
habitats and protect fish and other marine
wildlife ($310 million).
• Land Conservation and Habitat Restoration
($1.2 Billion). This money would be used to
protect and restore land for the benefit of fish
and wildlife. For example, it could support
purchasing land to set aside so that it is not
developed.
• Energy Infrastructure ($850 Million). More
than half of this money would support the
development of wind turbines off the California
coast ($475 million). Most of the remaining
money would pay for building infrastructure
such as transmission lines to carry electricity
long distances ($325 million). The rest of the
money would pay for projects to build large
batteries that store electricity for when it is
needed ($50 million).
• Parks ($700 Million). The bulk of this money
would support various activities that expand
recreational opportunities at parks or reduce
the impacts of climate change on parks
($300 million). These activities could include
adding new trails and parking areas. Some
of this money would provide grants to local
communities to build new parks or renovate
existing parks ($200 million). The rest of this
money would be used to repair state parks and
provide nature education ($200 million).
• Extreme Heat ($450 Million). Much of this
money would pay for activities focused on
protecting communities from extreme heat
($200 million). These activities could include
adding trees and greenspaces. Money would
also support places for people to go during
heatwaves or disasters ($100 million). The rest
of the money would provide grants for local
communities to conduct activities that provide
environmental benefits, such as reducing air
pollution ($150 million).
• Farms and Agriculture ($300 Million). Much
of this money would be used for activities that
encourage farmers to improve soil health,
reduce air pollution, and use less water
($105 million). This money would also support
community gardens and farmers’ markets,
such as by purchasing shade canopies
($60 million). The rest of this money would
support a range of other activities, such as
purchasing vans to transport farmworkers and
conserving farmland.
Establishes Other Requirements for the Use of
Funds. Proposition 4 requires the bond money
to be used in certain ways. For example, at least
40 percent of bond money must be used for
activities that directly benefit communities that
PROPOSITION AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE
PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL
LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.4
4 For the full text of Proposition 4, see page 75. Analysis | 27
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST CONTINUED
have lower incomes or are more vulnerable to the
impacts of climate change. Proposition 4 also
requires regular public reporting of how the bond
money is spent.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Increased State Costs of About $400 Million
Annually for 40 Years to Repay the Bond. The
estimated cost to repay the bond would be about
$400 million annually over a 40-year period.
Payments would be made from the state General
Fund. (The General Fund is the account the state
uses to pay for most public services, including
education, health care, and prisons.) This would
be less than one-half of 1 percent of the state’s
total General Fund budget. Since the state has
to pay interest on the money it borrows, the total
cost of the bond would be about 10 percent more
(after adjusting for inflation) than if the state paid
up front with money it already has.
Likely Reduced Local Costs for Natural Resources
and Climate Activities. The availability of state
bond funds could have various fiscal effects on
local governments. In some cases, the additional
state funding could replace local government
money that would otherwise be needed to pay for
a project. For example, this could include using
bond funds to help support an essential water
treatment facility the local government otherwise
would have needed to fund by itself. In other
cases, however, the availability of state funds
could encourage local governments to spend
more money to build larger projects than they
otherwise would. For example, this could include
adding additional amenities to a local park. On
net, Proposition 4 likely would result in savings to
local governments. The amount of these savings
is uncertain but could average tens of millions of
dollars annually over the next few decades.
Potential State and Local Savings if Funding
Prevents Disasters. To the extent the bond funds
result in completing activities that reduce the
risk or amount of damage from disasters, it could
reduce state and local costs for responding to
and recovering from those events. For example,
improving a levee could reduce the amount of
flooding that occurs. Additionally, thinning trees in
a forest could reduce the severity of wildfires. The
amount of such potential savings is uncertain.
Visit sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/cal-access-
resources/measure-contributions/2024-
ballot-measure-contribution-totals for a list
of committees primarily formed to support or
oppose this measure.
Visit fppc.ca.gov/transparency/
top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
4 AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE
PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL
LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.
PROPOSITION
4 4
28 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
PROPOSITION AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE
PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL
LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.4
★ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 4 ★
★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 4 ★
Clean drinking water and preventing destructive wildfires are necessities, not luxuries. These should be addressed within our state budget, not by demanding $10 billion more from the taxpayers in the form of a bond that will cost nearly double to repay—$19.3 billion.
The challenges we face with wildfires and water supply are the result of decades of neglect and mismanagement of our resources. Empowering tribal leaders for forest management and investing in water infrastructure could have prevented these crises. These aren’t random occurrences, but
repercussions of misguided policies.
Despite politicians’ frequent promises for accountability, since 2000 California voters have approved over $30 billion in natural resources bonds—with little to show. After years of refusing to prioritize spending on forest management, we are suffering the aftermath of major wildfires that could have been prevented, or at least minimized. After years of refusing to invest in water storage, we are facing water supply instability.
Instead of burdening taxpayers with a bond that
overpromises, we should tackle these issues in the budget.
Real change stems from commitment, not quick fixes. This isn’t just policy, it’s our future. Let’s choose pragmatism over procrastination.
Sacramento politicians should not demand more money
from the taxpayers or pressure voters to pass an unrealistic bond package that lacks any lasting change to state policy.
Vote NO on Proposition 4.
Vote NO on deferring our environmental responsibility at double the cost. Let’s invest in a greener tomorrow today.
Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones
Assemblyman Jim Patterson
Jon Coupal, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
YES on 4: TO CLEAN AND PROTECT OUR DRINKING
WATER, PREVENT WILDFIRES
Prop. 4 makes urgent, commonsense investments to protect our communities, health, economy, and natural resources by:
• Cleaning up and protecting water supplies • Preventing devastating wildfires • Protecting forests, beaches, fresh water sources, and wildlife habitat
Voting Yes on 4 is urgently needed. California faces
increasing threats from wildfires, water pollution, and extreme heat. Investments today can prevent future costs and damage from a changing climate and more frequent
natural disasters.
PROVIDING CLEAN, SAFE DRINKING WATER
Prop. 4 will clean up and protect California’s drinking water supplies in all regions of California—remove toxic pollutants from our drinking water, addressing infrastructure risks like weakened dams and levees, and increasing supplies.
Today, nearly 1 million Californians lack access to drinking water that meets safety and reliability standards, according to the State Water Board. Yes on 4 helps ensure we all have safe water to drink.
PREVENTING DEVASTATING WILDFIRES AND SMOKE
Recent California wildfires have burned 2 million acres, released toxic smoke into our air, and polluted drinking water supplies. Fire damage and smoke have harmed
quality of life and health, including children’s lungs, in every corner of California. Prop. 4 invests in projects to prevent wildfires, reduce their intensity when they do occur, and improve disaster response.
“Giving firefighters the tools to prevent wildfires is the best, most cost effective way to prevent the human and
financial costs of these disasters. Prop. 4 makes the
right investments to save lives and billions in response and recovery costs. ”—Tim Edwards, President, CALFIRE
Firefighters
PROTECTING FORESTS, BEACHES, RIVERS, STREAMS,
AND WILDLIFE
Our beaches, forests, and mountains make California
special, and we have a responsibility to protect them for our children and future generations. Protecting natural areas and wildlife is more urgent today than ever before, as we lose wildlife habitat, farm and ranchland, and even beaches wash away. Prop. 4 protects these natural areas from wildfire, pollution, and other threats from a changing climate.
PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH
By removing pollution from the air and toxins from our
water, Prop. 4 protects the health of vulnerable seniors and children.
STRONG FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY &
TRANSPARENCY
California is already paying the price for failing to adequately prepare for drought and a changing climate. This measure helps shift from disaster response to prevention.
Our state and communities will save billions more by
avoiding and reducing damage from wildfires, droughts, and floods.
Prop. 4 contains strict fiscal accountability and
transparency:
• Annual independent audits • Full public disclosure of all future funding
Join California firefighters (CalFire Local 2881), the National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, Clean Water Action, and water agencies including San Diego Co Water Authority: YES on 4.
Jennifer Clary, State Director
Clean Water Action
Tim Edwards, President
CALFIRE Firefighters
Beth Pratt, California Regional Executive Director
National Wildlife Federation
4 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments | 29
AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE
PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL
LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.
PROPOSITION
4 ★ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 4 ★
★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 4 ★
YES on 4: ADDRESSES CALIFORNIA’S HIGHEST PRIORITY
DRINKING WATER and FIRE PREVENTION NEEDS
California firefighters, clean water organizations, public health experts, and conservation groups urge YES on 4, to address our state’s most vital needs for a safe water supply, wildfire prevention, and clean air.
The opposition itself admits, clean water and wildfire
prevention are critical priorities.
Prop. 4 makes efficient, sensible investments in proven solutions: upgrading drinking water treatment to remove contaminants, fixing crumbling dams and levees to prevent floods, creating groundwater storage and recycling plants to boost supply and prepare for drought, and investing in effective wildfire prevention and containment strategies.
YES on 4: SMART, URGENT INVESTMENTS WITH
STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS, PROTECTS
COMMUNITIES AND PREVENTS BILLIONS IN FUTURE
COSTS
Yes on 4 is fiscally responsible and fully transparent.
Nearly 1 million Californians lack access to clean drinking water. Yes on 4’s investments strengthen safe water
supplies and flood control infrastructure—saving billions in temporary fixes and economic losses.
A UCLA study found 10 years of wildfire smoke have caused 50,000 premature deaths and $400 billion in economic
losses. Wildfire prevention saves six times its cost in reduced damage, while protecting our health.
“California’s financial health is vulnerable to natural disasters, neglected infrastructure, and a changing climate.
Without raising taxes, Yes on Prop. 4 saves California money while helping state and local governments protect our
communities. ”—Tim Gage, former state Director of Finance.
California communities can’t wait.
YES on 4: CLEAN DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE
PREVENTION, and OUR HEALTH.
Susana De Anda, Executive Director
Community Water Center
Sarah Gibson, Fire Manager
The Nature Conservancy
Christopher Chavez, Deputy Policy Director
Coalition for Clean Air
TOO MUCH DEBT, TOO LITTLE BENEFIT: THE PROBLEM
WITH PROPOSITION 4
Bonds are the most expensive way for the government
to pay for things. Proposition 4 would add a whopping
$10 billion of debt to the taxpayers—PLUS an estimated
$9.3 billion in interest—to pay for climate-related programs.
This funding would also cover administrative costs and
salaries for grant recipients. But remember, this is borrowed money.
At the start of the year, California already had over
$78 billion of bond debt. Proposition 1 in March added
another $6.38 billion. Now there’s a proposal to add an additional $10 billion for ambiguous climate programs.
Guess who’s going to foot the bill? That’s right—we
taxpayers. Our tax dollars will be diverted from essential services to cover interest payments and principal repayment of the bond.
Bonds are borrowed money that must be paid back, PLUS
INTEREST, no matter what the state must cut to do it.
Governor Newsom already declared a budget emergency
because the state spends more than it takes in. How
many programs will have to be cut in the future to pay for Proposition 4? According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, we had a $62 billion deficit this year. What will happen when we have both a deficit AND the obligation to repay this enormous bond debt?
Two years ago, California had a nearly $100 billion
SURPLUS. If these climate projects had been prioritized then, we could have covered the entire cost of this bond with just 10 percent of that surplus. Now, due to the
government’s inability to manage its spending, they are asking voters for more of their hard-earned money.
AS A VOTER, YOUR TAX DOLLARS SHOULD FUND YOUR
HIGHEST PRIORITIES, NOT PET PROJECTS.
Bonds should be reserved for financing essential projects that will build infrastructure lasting beyond the 30-year payoff period. However, many elements of Proposition 4 fail to meet that standard, resulting in $10 billion of spending just being added to the taxpayers’ credit card—with a
lack of accountability or measured metrics for success! Proposition 4 is full of money being funneled to unproven technologies that may sound promising on paper but have no concrete evidence of success. By committing funds to speculative projects, Proposition 4 overlooks long-term water storage and critical wildfire fuel management
programs in favor of short-term, unproven projects.
IT’S RECKLESS TO USE COSTLY BORROWED MONEY TO
PAY FOR UNPROVEN PROGRAMS.
Proposition 4 represents a reckless increase in state
debt with questionable benefits. The government should
prioritize essential services and ensure that any borrowing is reserved for projects that provide lasting, tangible benefits to the state and its residents. Vital programs should be funded in the budget with the taxes we already pay, not through costly borrowing. What’s in the budget that’s a higher priority than safe drinking water and wildfire prevention? Politicians should answer that question before racking up another $10+ billion in debt that will have to be paid back, WITH INTEREST.
Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones
Assemblyman Jim Patterson
Jon Coupal, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association