Proposition 4: Authorizes Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Communities and Natural Lands From Climate Risks. Legislative Statute.
Authorizes Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Communities and Natural Lands From Climate Risks. Legislative Statute.
Summary
Proposition 4 is a legislatively referred bond act which permits the state to sell a $10 billion bond to fund assorted projects to reduce climate change risks including: $3.8 billion for safe drinking water and water pliancy; $1.95 billion for wildfire prevention and extreme heat mitigation; $1.9 billion for preservation of natural lands, parks, and wildlife; $1.2 billion for protection of coastal lands, bays, and oceans; $850 million for green energy; and $300 million for agriculture.
Proposition 4 requires the bond money to be used in certain ways for vulnerable communities. Proposition 4 also requires regular public reporting of how the bond money is spent.
Fiscal Impact
The estimated cost to repay the bond would be about $400 million each year over a 40 year period. Payments would be made from the general fund. If the bond funds projects which reduce the risk of damage from environmental disasters, it could reduce state and local government costs for response and recovery. The amount of such potential savings is uncertain.
The effects on local governments are also unclear. In some cases, local governments could use the additional state funding to pay for projects. However, the availability of funds could inspire local governments to fund larger projects then they would have. Overall, Proposition 4 is expected to result in savings to local governments, though the amount of the savings is uncertain.
What your vote means
A YES vote on this measure means: The state could borrow $10 billion to fund various activities aimed at conserving natural resources, as well as responding to the causes and effects of climate change.
A NO vote on this measure means: The state could not borrow $10 billion to fund various activities aimed at conserving natural resources, as well as responding to the causes and effects of climate change.
Official Voter Information
California Secretary of State, Text of Proposed Laws, Prop. 4 begins on page 75
California Secretary of State and State Attorney General, Voter Information Guide, Summary Analysis of Prop. 4
California Secretary of State, Quick Reference Guide Prop. 4
California Secretary of State,Official Voter Information Guide Prop. 4
California Legislative Analyst's Office, Proposition 4
California Secretary of State, Cal-Access, Cal-Access Campaign Finance Activity Prop. 4
California Secretary of State, Cal-Access: Campaign Contribution Guide Prop 4
California Fair Political Practices Commission, November 2024 General Election Top Contributors Lists
Non-partisan Voter Information
CalMatters Prop.4 Explained (video)
Calmatters Explicación de la Proposición 4 en las elecciones de California de 2024 (video)
Project for an Informed Electorate Sacramento State, Prop. 4 PIE Initiative Explainer (video)
Public Opinion Polls
Public Policy Institute of California Statewide Survey, Sept. 2024
Public Policy Institute of California Statewide Survey, Oct. 2024
Pro/Con Statements
| Pro | Con |
|---|---|
|
Proponents claim that Prop. 4 is urgently needed as California is facing increasing threats from wildfire, extreme heat, and water pollution. They say that the proposition will remove toxic pollutants from our drinking water, address weaknesses in environmental infrastructure, and invest in projects to prevent wildfires, reduce their impacts when they occur, and improve disaster response. |
Opponents of Proposition 4 claim that using bonds to pay for government projects is the most expensive method to pay for government projects. They claim that the measure will add $10 billion in debt to California taxpayers with an additional $9.3 billion in interest. Opponents believe that the measure requires spending on speculative projects that use unproven technologies. They claim that the overall benefits from the measure are questionable at best. |
| Supporters | Opponents |
|---|---|
|
The IGS Library has not located a campaign in opposition to the ballot measure. Jonathan KellerCalifornia Family Council, https://CaliforniaFamily.org/Proposition3 |