Prop. 4: Climate Crisis or Environmental Stewardship?

Proposition 4 is labeled as “supporting safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, and protecting communities and natural lands from climate risks.”[1] But how exactly would it fund and enact these programs, and how are they different than the current environmental policy of the state of California?

Summary of Proposition 4

Proposition 4, if passed, would allow the state government to sell a bond for $10 billion to fund climate and environmental programs. The proposition was authored by California Senator Ben Allen,[2] and it is supported by groups like Clean Water Action, National Wildlife Federation, Cal Fire Firefighters, California Labor Federation, and the League of Women Voters of California.[3] These groups make the argument that environmental issues like wildfires and water pollution are threatening California due to a changing climate, and so our state needs additional funding for programs that would reduce these threats.

On the other side, the proposition is opposed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, by the Senate GOP Leader Brian Jones, and by other conservative members of the state Senate and Assembly. Opponents argue that bonds cost the state far more to fund than allocating money to these programs through the state budget and should not be used to pay for projects that have been tried, unsuccessfully, and are yet proven to work.[4]

 What exactly would this bond issuance be funding? What are the problems Proposition 4 is seeking to address and what solutions would it fund? There are eight categories related to climate or environmental programs that the funding would be split among:

1.     $3.8 billion would go to drought, flood, and water supply. This would include measures to:

a.   Improve availability and quality of drinking water,

b.     Prevent flooding (dams) and increase water storage, and

c.     Restore rivers and lakes.

2.     $1.5 billion would go to forest health and wildfire prevention. This would include measures like:

a.     Thinning trees and clearing vegetation to prevent wildfires, and

b.     Helping homeowners make their properties resistant to damage.

3.     $1.2 billion would be allocated to rising sea-levels and coastal areas. Examples of these actions would be:

a.     Restoring wetlands to act as buffers for rising sea levels, and

b.     Improving the ocean habitat to protect fish.

4.     $1.2 billion would go toward land conservation and habitat restoration, mostly focusing on:

a.     Restoring land to protect wildlife, like purchasing land to restrict it from development.

5.     $850 million would be allocated for changes to energy infrastructure, such as:

a.     Building more wind turbines,

b.     Building infrastructure for electricity, and

c.     Building large batteries to store energy.

6.     $700 million is reserved for local and state parks, specifically to:

a.     Reduce impacts of climate change on parks,

b.     Add new trails and parking areas to local parks,

c.     Repair state parks and provide nature education, and

d.     Awarding grants to local governments for park repairs.

7.     $450 million would go toward programs addressing extreme heat, including actions like:

a.     Adding trees and greenspace to protect from extreme heat,

b.     Building spaces for people to go in extreme heat, and

c.     Reducing air pollution. Which, as a side note, I’m not sure what pollution has to do with extreme heat, but that is what is listed within the proposition.

8.     And lastly, $300 million would go toward farms and agriculture, specifically:

a.     Programs to encourage farmers to improve soil health, reduce air pollution, and use less water,

b.     Purchasing shade canopies for local gardens, and

c.     Purchasing vans to transport farmworkers.[5]

 Clearly, there is a wide range of issues this proposition is addressing, and a wide range of activities that it would split the money out among to perform. But before understanding these issues more in-depth, how would these activities be funded, what would the cost implications be, and can we afford it right now?

Budgetary Considerations

For an in-depth analysis of the state of the California budget, refer to my article on Prop. 2: The Public School System and the Taxpayer. I mentioned that our state is currently in a multibillion-dollar deficit, specifically 38 billion dollars since June 2024, and projected to be somewhere around 68 billion dollars by June of 2025. Essentially, the problem boils down to the fact that the government’s spending is far exceeding its revenue.

 So, what would the cost implications of this specific bond be? Proposition 4’s bond repayment would be spread over 40 years, coming out to a total of $400 million per year, resulting in a total cost of $16 billion dollars over the life of the bond.[6] Bonds end up being more expensive than funding out of the state budget because of the interest applied, which is why even though the bond would be issued for 10 billion dollars, it would end up costing an additional 6 billion over time.

 Why are bonds used if they are more expensive? Bonds historically have been used to cover initiatives that require a large capital outlay and then have the work on the initiative spread over future years, also potentially bringing in monetary returns as projects hit milestones.[7] The most common example of this is construction initiatives. Construction costs a lot of money upfront, but the work is often spread over several years, hitting milestones along the way like completion of part of whatever is being constructed. The construction should, in theory, have a large portion of its cost paid for all at once, and different generations of taxpayers should benefit from the construction over future decades.[8] There are only a few times historically that California has deviated from this principal to fund initiatives that normally fall under budget appropriations, but for the most part bonds are used for infrastructure projects.

 What’s important for taxpayers to understand is that bonds are not just free money, they have to be paid back, with interest, and they are paid back from your tax money. So, while usually the governor and the legislature have to look at the tax revenues they are bringing in and develop a plan on how to steward that money to fund critical initiatives for the state, by passing bonds, the state will collect additional taxes from California residents, over and above what the state would normally collect annually. They do this usually through temporarily raising tax rates, like income taxes, sales taxes, and even property taxes. But as we discussed last week, California already spends $6 billion dollars annually to pay down the hundreds of billions of dollars that we have already borrowed through previous bond issuances. So, our state already has a large amount of debt that it is working to pay down, and that debt is already being paid for by your tax dollars; in Proposition 4, the state is looking to continue taking on more debt for programs that shouldn’t qualify to be paid through bonds.

 Climate programs are not the same as infrastructure programs. Environmental projects are ones that should be paid for by setting aside a portion of tax revenues in the state budget to go toward these initiatives. Additionally, environmental programs also usually reach down to a local level, so local governments fund initiatives to improve their parks or to fund programs like community gardens – which were both topics mentioned in the summary of Proposition 4. This, again, is all done through the budget process, not typically by incurring debt.

 In summary, this proposition were to pass, it would cost a total of $16 billion dollars, it would add an additional $400 million dollars each year to the $6 billion dollars we are already spending to fund previously issued bonds, and it would issue debt for a program that logically should be handled through budget appropriations.

 From a bigger picture perspective, how much do we already spend on climate or environmental programs from the state budget? For the current fiscal year, the 2024-2025 budget has about $13.5 billion dollars allocated to environmental protection and natural resources initiatives. This is about 5 percent of the total annual budget.[9] In 2022, Gavin Newsom and the Legislature passed through his California Climate Commitment plan, which was a $54 billion dollar spending plan just for climate initiatives, originally to be spent over 5 years.[10]

 These initiatives included everything from addressing drought, wildfires, and extreme heat to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, moving to other forms of energy, and cutting the use of fossil fuels.[11] Since then, because of the rising deficit, the Governor has had to slash some funding of the plan, yet overall, it still remains 83% funded.[12] The governor has also extended the plan to spread over 8 years, rather than the original 5-year plan.[13] The groups supporting Proposition 4 are upset that the governor has been decreasing some of the initial funding, but even with budget cuts, the program still remains funded by nearly 45 billion dollars.[14]

 It seems then that proposition 4 is on the ballot as a way to cover this deficit and make up for the reduced funding from the state budget. But we just discussed that this is not how bond initiatives should be used in our state. Ultimately, the deficit needs to be addressed through a decrease in spending on programs, but that shouldn’t pass down to just collecting higher taxes from California citizens to fund debt initiatives to keep the same programs in place that the government just can’t fund with its current revenue. Additionally, it’s fair to point out that while climate programs are less of a percentage of the total budget than other programs, like education or health and human services, there is still a lot of money allocated to it year over year that the government should be able to reasonably allocate among its most pressing environmental agendas.

 Climate Programs

So, we have looked at the state budget and how much we currently spend on climate or environmental programs. This leads us to ask: what are the problems Proposition 4 is addressing, and are they important enough to warrant a bond issuance to help solve them?

 As mentioned before, Proposition 4 points out eight categories of climate programs that it would allocate money from the bond issuance toward, and they range in topic from broader climate actions to more local environmental measures.

 Here’s what I want to do: I want to pull out the first two categories that Proposition 4 would allocate most of the funding toward: water supply and fire prevention. These two issues focus mostly on environmental stewardship as well as reducing impact on the citizens of the state. I want to use them as a case study for diving into what Proposition 4 is suggesting the issues are, what solutions are being proposed, what initiatives are already in place in our state government, and then from that information make an overall conclusion on if Proposition 4 is the most effective solution.

Water Supply & Drought Prevention

The first category of spending is on increasing the water supply and preventing drought. This is a prominent issue in California, especially because as a state we have faced drought in much of our history. The most recent droughts occurred from 2007 to 2009, and then again from 2012 to 2016.[15] We often swing from wet years, like what we have seen more recently in 2023, to dry years, so collecting and storing water should be a big priority of our state government. Currently, the largest source of our water supply is the San Joaquin Delta, which is up near Sacramento. This delta contains about two-thirds of our state’s water storage.[16]

 Proposition 4 attempts to increase this water supply and look to prevent future droughts by saying it will fix dams that are in need of repair, increase the capture of stormwater, and treat water to filter out contaminants.[17] My first question when reading these ideas is: are there no other initiatives in place to address the California water supply? Surely, these initiatives couldn’t be the first of their kind, considering water supply has been an issue in our state for decades.

 In 2023, the legislature passed the Dam Safety and Climate Resilience Local Assistance Program,[18] which was progress made as part of Governor Newsom’s 2022 Water Supply Strategy, the main goal of which was to regain lost water storage capacity and improve dams[19] – that sounds a lot like what Proposition 4 is saying it would do. The program originally designated $100 million dollars to its agenda but is currently funded for $47.5 million dollars.[20] The steps outlined in the Water Supply Strategy are to create more storage space for rainfall during storms, recycle wastewater being pushed out into the Pacific Ocean, promote more efficient use of water, and desalinate ocean water collected from groundwater basins.[21]

 How has that program been working so far? Have these solutions – which again, are identical to the ones described in Proposition 4 – been successful? According to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, in January of 2023, when flooding was strong across California due to all those atmospheric rivers, 95% of the rainwater that came in to California’s dams was pushed back out to the Pacific Ocean.[22] Why was rainwater not collected? If the focus of the program has been making all these changes so that we can better capture rainwater and increase the supply of water on hand, then why, in a year of such incredible rainfall, was water not being captured? It all comes down to policy. Even with these initiatives in place, there are still policy considerations that are prohibiting the success of these programs.

 Policy has focused specifically on one type of endangered fish, known as the Delta Smelt. What happens is the water in the San Joaquin River Delta - which again, holds 2/3rds of our water storage - is pumped out into the California Aqueduct to travel to different parts of the state for use. This then also frees up mores space for collecting rainwater when there are storms. However, this water in the Delta also contains an ecosystem of different fish - the Delta Smelt being one of them. When water is pumped into the aqueduct, the Delta Smelt are often sucked into the pumps and killed. As a result, they are going extinct as a species. California policy requires reduced pumping at the beginning of storms to give the smelt enough time and water to swim upstream away from the pumps.[23] However, as a result, less water is pushed out into the areas where we need it for use – like middle California where a lot of farms are located, or Southern California where we need the most water since our rainfall is even less here than across the state – and thus ultimately reducing the amount of water that can be captured during storms.

While I can agree that preserving ecosystems and animal species like the Delta Smelt is a good thing to do, my instincts ask the question: should it be a higher priority to protect one species of fish that exclusively live in the Delta than to do what we need to do in order to increase our water supply and move clean water to the places that our state, and our population, needs it most? In my view, this is an example of governmental mismanagement as a result of policy due to conflicting priorities, and many legislators feel the same way. Several California lawmakers wrote a letter to both Governor Newsom and President Biden in response to what happened with water mismanagement in 2023, calling on them to make the most of the heavy rainfall and provide relief to the state by collecting the water rather than increase restrictions on things like the amount of pumping allowed from the Delta into the reservoir.[24]

Even with a change in regulations related to existing dams, there is still an even bigger problem in that the most recent dam constructed was back in 1999.[25] Since then, there has been no construction of new dams or reservoirs, despite all of the statewide initiatives that have been passed and the money that has been poured into these programs.

So, when it comes to the water supply, with the current Water Supply Strategy and Dam Safety Assistance Programs already in place, which are meant to address the same goals as Proposition 4, and with millions of dollars in funding already poured into these programs, why is Proposition 4 then proposing for voters to pass an additional bond for these initiatives? Why not continue these efforts through the program already in place and focus on state funding rather than taking on debt that will flow down to the taxpayer? And more importantly, why not refocus these existing avenues to start work that will actually make an impact, like building new dams or reducing regulations?

What I am deducing from this is that money may not be the issue when it comes to the water supply, but rather the key issue, again, is policy. The California government is saying they want to increase the water supply, and they allocate millions of dollars toward it, but then in action they don’t actually do what they have committed to doing, or they prioritize other issues above what actually affects its citizens on a day-to-day basis. While the issue of the water supply and access to water is real and important to our state, we have to ask ourselves the question: do we approve billions of dollars to go into programs that already exist and yet have been failing in reaching their goals?

Forest Management & Fire Prevention

The second category of spending is for forest health and wildfire prevention. This is another huge issue in our state. As someone who lives in Southern California, I can speak firsthand to the number of wildfires that we see on an annual basis. Proposition 4 proposes further funding for forest management, like thinning out forests, and wildfire prevention help for homeowners in high-risk areas. But again, we ask, what policies, if any, are already in place for wildfire prevention? Do we have initiatives surrounding this issue? 

The answer, again, is yes, we do. In response to record-breaking wildfires across California in 2020, Gavin Newsom passed California’s Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan, outlining an investment of $1 billion dollars into initiatives to prevent wildfires and to conduct ongoing forest management.[26] The problem in years prior was that most of the money allocated to these types of initiatives focused spending on fire suppression – fighting fires as they start – which includes costs to hire more firefighters as well as to pay for the resources they need to stop fires. However, a key component to addressing wildfires is to prevent them, and the best way to prevent fires is by cutting away old brush and keeping forests thinner rather than thicker, so there is less material for burning.[27] That is why Governor Newsom’s plan emphasized the idea of forest management.

His predecessor, Governor Jerry Brown, had issued an executive order during his tenure as governor for California fire agencies to complete 500,000 acres of forest management (such as thinning forests) annually from 2018 to 2023.[28] However, the state struggled to reach that goal. When Governor Newsom passed his action plan, he reaffirmed those goals through an agreement with the U.S. Forest Service on a federal level to each complete 500,000 acres of forest management each year by 2025. The problem continues to persist though, despite commitment to these initiatives, evidenced by the fact that in 2023, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection reported just 105,000 acres of forest management performed.[29] That’s barely 20% of the 500,000-acre goal.

There are a few factors as to why these initiatives have still ended up largely unsuccessful. The first is that, while Newsom’s Wildfire Action plan attempts to address forest management, from what I read, there is really no clear mention of clearing away brush or thinning forests. The plan is fairly vague overall when it comes to how this management should be done to prevent wildfires. While it sounds good to have an initiative that is supposed to prevent wildfires, the initiative isn’t necessarily helping to do that.

A second factor in struggling to reach these goals is an inefficient, and honestly just nonexistent, system of tracking and reporting of progress in forest management. Wildfire specialists have called for some type of accounting system to be put in place to better measure how projects are being completed, which would also aid in offering transparency to the taxpayer on how this money from the state budget is being spent.[30] It could then also give fire agencies and people responsible for forest management an idea of how progress is being made across the state. But no such system has been put in place, and as a result, transparency has severely suffered and inhibited forward progress on the initiatives. In fact, an investigation by The California Newsroom found that Governor Newsom actually overstated the number of acres treated by his initiatives by a shocking 690%.[31]

So, just as we saw with the management of the water supply, here we again see issues with policy and with transparency. There seems to be funding for fire prevention initiatives, and plans that have been put in place with the same goals as Proposition 4, and yet there have not been results or improvements on the issues at hand. These are just two of the eight categories of initiatives outlined in Proposition 4, but already we have found some key gaps that are calling into question both the necessity and the effectiveness of the spending outlined in the proposition. Should we be issuing a bond in the first place to cover programs that should be funded through state or local budgets? What about proposition 4 would be different from the statewide initiatives already put in place with the same objectives and, in many cases, the same proposed solutions? And if the initiatives proposed by the government are not followed up by actual action and improvement, why should we trust them with more of our money?

Commonsense Response

What are we then to think about this proposition? I have several thoughts I want to outline for you.

The first thought I want to address is the importance and critical nature of some of these environmental programs. Climate change and the environment is a huge topic, and it is also a highly controversial topic, especially within conservative circles. I think it is worth taking a moment to address how we should think about both the environment and the climate as residents of California, and then for many of us also as Christians. We do this by first distinguishing between two categories of programs. You may have noticed throughout this article that I have used two phrases, often next to each other: climate programs and environmental programs. I have used these different phrases because I believe they represent two different ideas.

Climate generally refers to a broader, more global scale agenda, examples of which are reducing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, reducing global warming, and moving away from fossil fuels to cleaner forms of energy. Climate programs raise questions like, what does the data prove out is actually occurring globally, what are achievable goals when it comes to addressing the climate, and what is the cost versus benefit analysis in pouring money into these programs? I think these are valid questions. It seems to be an accepted narrative in so much of our media and in our government that climate change is not just real but is an existential threat that has to be a top priority of policy to address.

But I believe there is room for dissent. I believe that you can accept that there are global changes that occur but you can disagree with the urgency that is often pushed by lawmakers, and you can disagree with the policies enacted to attempt to change what is happening with climate. And you can do that, because while scientists make assertions about climate changes, like global warming, many also admit that these assertions are uncertain and are estimates that fall in a broad range. Gavin Schmidt, who is a climatologist and is the Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview back in 2020 that “climate sensitivity has a wide uncertainty range.”[32] Yet, while climate impact is uncertain, our own state government, especially in California, has poured billions into climate initiatives to try to slow this impact that we can’t even be assured we are accurately measuring.

I don’t believe you have to agree with that as a matter of policy. The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of the Paris Agreement, which is a climate treaty that the United States reentered on the first day of the Biden Administration, would be about $20,000 dollars per family, and a total GDP loss for the United States of $2.5 trillion dollars, to slow global warming by just tenths of a degree Celcius.[33] So, I personally find it very reasonable to ask questions about what the goal of climate policy really is, what threats climate change would actually pose to our communities, what government spending on climate policy will actually do, and if trillions of dollars spent is the best use of taxpayer money for little to no return. We could go way further into a discussion of climate change, and we probably will in some future episode, but for now I just want to make the point that when it comes to quote-unquote climate initiatives, I understand skepticism there, and I agree that most policies are wasting the money we pay on programs that are making little to no change.

However, climate programs are not the only types of programs addressed by the government, and they are also not the only programs outlined in Proposition 4. Which is where I turn to environmental programs. Environmental programs focus less on climate change and the overall global scale and focus more on statewide or local measures to steward our environment, to preserve ecosystems where we can, and also to reduce the impacts of environmental disasters – like wildfires – on residents of the state. This is where we can take each issue individually and assess them for what they are – as we just did with water supply and fire prevention. As I said as we looked at those issues, I believe environmental issues like water management and forest management are extremely important, for all states, but especially for a state like California where these have proven to be big issues. Of course, if the state is prone to drought, water management will be important. Similarly, if the state is prone to wildfires, then forest management will also be important. That is because environmental issues affect people, and because people are stewards of the resources at their disposal. Having clean drinking water, reducing air pollution, and doing what we can to prevent natural disasters are acts of good governance that seek the good of the land and the people who live there. I don’t believe that spending money on these programs is a waste, as long as it is done effectively.

I know that there is an assumption floating around in the political world today that conservatives don’t care about the environment, but I think that is an inaccurate assertion. Take President Reagan for example. He isn’t remembered as some great environmentalist, but he is the one who signed the California Environmental Quality Act as governor, and he also signed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act as President. Even the Trump administration took action on the environment through signing the Strengthening Coastal Communities Act in 2018, which had bipartisan support in Congress.[34] These serve as examples that caring about the environment on issues that matter is not split across party lines, even among some of the most well-known conservative administrations. And that is because it is not a conservative value to flippantly disregard the environment. It is true that conservative values are to desire small government, lower regulations, and lessen government spending, but you can value those things while also supporting good legislation that spends taxpayer dollars well to preserve our natural resources and support the quality of life in our communities – which exist within the environment.

The truth is that care for the environment, like many other issues, has to be balanced with prioritizing human life and being realistic about our goals, and unfortunately when it comes to more radical ideas like climate change, that balance often gets thrown out the window. As a result, we have the tendency to swing so far the other way that we are left feeling like to care about the environment you have to support getting rid of all gas cars and pouring trillions of dollars into the Paris agreement, or the only other option is you have to disregard the environment entirely. But that isn’t true.

For the Christian specifically, should we care about the environment and why? Well, all of the reasons I’ve already given hold true, but in addition to that, we also know that God has given us the Earth and its resources for our good, and He has given us dominion to rule over all of it. That means that we care about the environment because it’s His creation, and we take care of His creation, and it also means that we don’t live in fear of our impact on it because we know that it was created for us to live in. Additionally, we know from Romans 8 that all creation is groaning, waiting for Christ’s return when all things, including Creation, will be restored. This means we will never live in a perfect environment, and some decline, such as a warming Earth, is a direct result of living in a fallen world. Like all areas of the Christian life, there is a tension between God’s providential rule and man’s responsibility.

Think of raising children. As a Christian, you teach them the Bible, you take them to church, you try to help them know God and cultivate a relationship with Him. You are proactive to do all of those things. But, at the end of the day, you also realize your child’s life is in the hands of the Lord. You will not be able to protect them from every bad decision they might make, you don’t control whether they choose to love the Lord when they get older, and you cannot direct the outcome of their life. On one side, you could argue that you should do everything possible to control their lives and make them love the Lord or else you are being lazy. On the other side you could argue that the Lord is in control and so you don’t have to do anything, just sit back and let Him do the work. Both of those sides would be wrong! Because the Christian life is a balance of resting in the providential care of God, while doing the good works He has prepared in advance for you (Ephesians 2:10). We can apply the same thinking to the environment. Of course, we work hard to steward the resources we have been given and express our gratitude to the Lord for giving us those resources, but we also rest in knowing there is a lot that is out of our control, and that we cannot reverse the effects of sin in our world, no matter how much money we pour into trying.

With all of this considered, we have to go back to a few basic principles and hold them all together at the same time:

1.     The environment is important because we have limited resources that we are dependent on, and it is our job to steward those resources wisely and limit the damage where we can.

2.     Human life far outweighs the environment, meaning that when choosing between saving a fish or saving a human life, humans have to come first.

3.     When it comes to matters of policy positions, we have to advocate for wise, prudent, and effective use of money, which means we have to look realistically at how helpful environmental policies will be and refuse to support those that waste money on activities that will not actually help the environment in any meaningful way.

All of these principles are true, and to discern which policy positions are deserving of support or not I believe that we need to view environmental policy in light of all of them. 

Looking at Proposition 4 through the lens of these principles, should we support it or not?

First, does it identify important issues of environmental stewardship that have an impact on residents of the state? I believe that it both does, and it doesn’t. One key problem with this proposition that I mentioned earlier is that it covers such a broad range of topics that it requires you to accept either all of it together or none of it at all. Some of the topics are important – water, forest management, local and state parks, and farms and agriculture are all key issues. These deal with stewarding our resources well and ensuring that people have access to water and food, are kept safe from preventable natural disasters, have green space in their communities to take their kids outside and enjoy the beauty of the environment, and sustaining farms and agriculture in our state. But there are other topics included that are more open to debate, such as investing in more wind energy – which could be argued is not the most efficient or even cleanest form of energy, building spaces for people escape extreme heat – which I think you could argue is either a) not necessary due to several spaces available within communities like public libraries or local business or b) should not be included in an environmental proposition as it relates more to infrastructure, improving the ocean habitat to protect certain species of fish – which is a really vague initiative with no detail as to how that would be achieved with taxpayer dollars and also begins to ask the question of what the role of the state of California is in that initiative, and purchasing vans to transport farmworkers – which, I don’t know at all how that relates to the environment or is the responsibility of the taxpayer to fund. So, just from this question, I am not convinced this is the best use of money. These initiatives need to be broken out and clearly defined so that voters can choose for themselves which issues to support and which to oppose.

Second, do the policies proposed still value human life over the environment? I don’t see much in Proposition 4 specifically that speaks against this. While it is called a climate initiative, in which case I think you could argue there is some shift toward valuing the climate over valuing the effects the spending will have on California residents, Proposition 4 seems to be a blend of some climate initiatives and some environmental initiatives, and so based on this principle I don’t really have many concerns.

Lastly, is this proposition a wise and effective use of money to actually help the environment in meaningful ways? Unfortunately, because of all the research into how the state has handled similar programs like water supply and fire prevention, I just don’t see that here. It seems like the government is good at making broad policy statements that sound good, spending billions of dollars on the programs, and ending up with no tangible positive outcomes. Because of that, I just cannot support a proposition that seeks to enact the same policies we already have in place and yet have been proven not to work. Especially considering the current state of the California budget and the fact that we need to be cutting expenditures, not taking on more debt, to address the multibillion-dollar deficit.

What should the state do? Well, the good news is that California already has so many environmental programs in place that are funded by hundreds of millions, if not billions, or dollars! The state should focus on reshaping those programs to implement effective policies that will actually address the issues at hand and prove to be a wise use of taxpayer money.

What should you do? I’d recommend you vote no on proposition 4.

References:

[1] Legislative Analyst’s Office, “Proposition 4 [Ballot],” 2024, https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=4&year=2024.

[2] Feinstein, Mike. “Proposition 4 and Paradigm Shifts, Questions With State Senator Ben Allen.” Santa Monica Daily Press, July 30, 2024. https://smdp.com/2024/07/30/proposition-4-paradigm-shifts-and-our-planet-climate-resiliency-questions-with-state-senator-ben-allen/.

[3] Lazo, Alejandro. “California Proposition 4: Climate Bond.” CalMatters, September 2, 2024. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2024/propositions/prop-4-climate-bond/.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Legislative Analyst’s Office, “Proposition 4 [Ballot].”

[6] Ibid.

[7] Walters, Dan. “Should California Use Bond Money to Cover Its Budget Deficits?” CalMatters, July 27, 2023. https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/07/bond-money-cover-budget-deficits/.

[8] Legislative Analyst’s Office. “Frequently Asked Questions About Bond Financing,” February 2007. https://lao.ca.gov/2007/bond_financing/bond_financing_020507.aspx#:~:text=Why%20Are%20Bonds%20Used?,paid%20out%20of%20current%20revenues.

[9] State of California. “2024-25 Governor’s Budget.” ebudget.ca.gov, January 10, 2024. https://ebudget.ca.gov/budget/2024-25/#/BudgetDetail.

[10] Deehan, Laura, and Steven King. “STATEMENT: Governor Announces $9 Billion in Cuts to Climate.” Environment America, May 10, 2024. https://environmentamerica.org/california/media-center/statement-governors-announces-9-billion-in-cuts-to-climate-programs-in-revised-budget/.

[11] Governor of the State of California. “CALIFORNIA CLIMATE COMMITMENT.” Gov.Ca, 2022. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Fact-Sheet-California-Climate-Commitment.pdf?emrc=1ff9ee.

[12] Lazo, Alejandro. “California Climate Programs Would Lose Billions in Newsom’s Budget.” CalMatters, June 30, 2024. https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2024/05/california-climate-programs-newsom-budget/.

[13] Deehan and King, “STATEMENT: Governor Announces $9 Billion in Cuts to Climate.”

[14] Ibid.

[15] California Department of Water Resources. “Drought,” July 1, 2024. https://water.ca.gov/drought/#:~:text=California%20is%20no%20stranger%20to,in%20the%201920s%20and%201930s.

[16] Water Education Foundation. “California Water Overview - Water Education Foundation,” June 22, 2020. https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/california-water-issues-overview#:~:text=The%20demand%20for%20water%20is,crucial%20for%20California's%20water%20supply.

[17] Yes on 4 - Prevent Wildfires. Protect Our Drinking Water. “Yes on 4 – Prevent Wildfires. Protect Our Drinking Water.,” n.d. https://yesonprop4ca.com/.

[18] California Department of Water Resources. “Dam Safety and Climate Resilience Local Assistance Program,” April 25, 2024. https://water.ca.gov/Work-With-Us/Grants-And-Loans/Dam-Safety-and-Enhancements-Program.

[19] Becker, Rachel. “These 42 California Dams Need Repairs. But Lawmakers Cut the Funds in Half.” CalMatters, June 25, 2024. https://calmatters.org/environment/water/2024/06/california-dams-repairs-budget-cuts-newsom/.

[20] California Department of Water Resources, “Dam Safety and Climate Resilience Local Assistance Program.”

[21] California For All, California Natural Resources Agency, State of California Department of Water Resources, California Water Boards, California Environmental Protection Agency, and California Department of Food & Agriculture. “California’s Water Supply Strategy.” CA.Gov, August 2022. https://resources.ca.gov/-/media/CNRA-Website/Files/Initiatives/Water-Resilience/CA-Water-Supply-Strategy.pdf.

[22] Smith, Hayley. “Anger Flares as California Stormwater Washes Out to Sea - Los Angeles Times.” Los Angeles Times, January 20, 2023. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-01-20/anger-flares-as-california-stormwater-washes-out-to-sea.

[23] James, Ian. “Inside the California Operation to Keep Water Flowing - Los Angeles Times.” Los Angeles Times, May 13, 2024. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-05-02/inside-the-california-operation-to-keep-water-flowing.

[24] Smith, “Anger Flares as California Stormwater Washes Out to Sea - Los Angeles Times.”

[25] Skelton, George. “Column: It’s About Time California Built the Sites Reservoir - Los Angeles Times.” Los Angeles Times, November 13, 2023. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-11-13/column-its-about-time-california-built-the-sites-reservoir-critics-be-damned#:~:text=It%20will%20be%20the%20biggest,Diamond%20Valley%20in%20Riverside%20County.

[26] Frost, Garrison. “Wildfire Action Plan Unveiled in Response to Record-breaking Fire Season.” Save the Redwoods League, January 13, 2021. https://www.savetheredwoods.org/blog/wildfire-action-plan-unveiled-in-response-to-record-breaking-fire-season/.

[27] Lozano, Alicia Victoria. “Decades of Mismanagement Led to Choked Forests — Now It’s Time to Clear Them Out, Fire Experts Say,” October 20, 2020. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/decades-mismanagement-led-choked-forests-now-it-s-time-clear-n1243599.

[28] Danielle Venton [KQED], and Scott Rodd [Investigative Reporter]. “Cal Fire Fumbles Key Responsibilities to Prevent Catastrophic Wildfires Despite Historic Budget.” KPBS Public Media, June 21, 2022. https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2022/06/21/cal-fire-key-responsibilities-prevent-catastrophic-wildfires-historic-budget.

[29] Smith, Hayley. “Newsom’s Plan to Harness California Land to Fight Climate Change - Los Angeles Times.” Los Angeles Times, April 22, 2024. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-04-22/california-wants-to-harness-half-of-its-acreage-to-combat-climate-change-heres-how#:~:text=(By%20comparison%2C%20the%20California%20Department,of%20combined%20treatment%20and%20burns).

[30] Ibid.

[31] Rodd, Scott. “Newsom Misled the Public About Wildfire Prevention Efforts Ahead of Worst Fire Season on Record.” CapRadio, June 23, 2021. https://www.capradio.org/articles/2021/06/23/newsom-misled-the-public-about-wildfire-prevention-efforts-ahead-of-worst-fire-season-on-record/.

[32] NASA Science Editorial Team. “Making Sense of ‘Climate Sensitivity’,” September 8, 2020. https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/making-sense-of-climate-sensitivity/.

[33] Dayaratna, Kevin D. “Consequences of Paris Protocol: Devastating Economic Costs, Essentially Zero Environmental Benefits | the Heritage Foundation.” The Heritage Foundation, April 13, 2016. https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/consequences-paris-protocol-devastating-economic-costs-essentially-zero.

[34] Lehmann, R.J. “Ronald Reagan’s Lasting Environmental Legacy - Washington Examiner.” Washington Examiner - Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, November 4, 2023. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/593582/ronald-reagans-lasting-environmental-legacy/.