Statement 4 is difficult to categorize. Is it a water bond? A climate resilience bond? A Christmas tree with environmental gifts for private and public interests throughout the state?
The answer is yes. The $10 million government bond is all that. The various expenses in this proposal 15,000 words of text are a reflection of the all-encompassing nature of climate change, but also the political deal needed in the state legislature to get this measure on the Nov. 5 ballot.
Despite some misgivings about the process, we believe voters should vote “yes” on Proposition 4. Investing now to address the growing and inevitable impacts of climate change will save the state and Californians in the long run to offer.
Read more: LA Times election recommendations for the November 2024 elections
Ideally, these investments could be made without financing, but state revenues are too volatile to provide a stable source of income. A few years ago, California began spending tens of billions of dollars of its massive budget surplus on climate programs, only to cut some of those same programs a few years later as the state fell into a budget deficit. California’s ability to prepare for and respond to climate impacts should not depend on the state’s budget cycle.
The bulk of the spending, $3.8 billion, goes to water projects, such as storage, reuse and recycling, cleaning up contaminated aquifers and protection against drought and floods.
The remainder will fund a wide range of climate, energy, conservation and agriculture projects, including $1.5 billion for wildfire prevention and forest resilience, $1.2 billion to protect the coast from rising of sea level and $1.2 billion for habitat conservation and restoration. There is $850 million available for the construction of offshore wind turbines, transmission lines and battery storage, $700 million for modernizing and expanding parks, museums, zoos and aquariums, $450 million for extreme heat and $300 million for agricultural sustainability projects.
Read more: Approval: Yes on Proposition 32. California’s minimum wage needs a boost
Proposition 4 will help California be proactive in the face of this slow-building disaster by investing now to protect communities from the climate impacts that are worsening as global warming accelerates. And there is no doubt that the vast majority of spending in this massive package is necessary and valuable.
As with any major government spending plan, there are issues that appear to have common ground with the bond. In this case, we’re calling for the $20 million for shade canopies, tables and other equipment for farmers’ markets and $15 million for vans to transport farmworkers. But these items are small in relation to the total expenditure, which is mainly focused on valuable projects that taxpayers will ultimately have to pay for in one way or another.
Read more: Approval: Yes on Proposition 2 to repair California’s many dilapidated schools
Opponents, including Brian Jones (R-Santee) and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., say it is irresponsible for the state to borrow money to replenish programs that have been cut from the budget, and that the $400 million in annual debt will leave lawmakers will bind. ‘ hands to respond to other priorities in the future.
In a perfect world that could be true. But it is even more irresponsible to hand over the responsibility for protecting California from the climate crisis to future generations.
The last environmental bond California voters approved was Proposition 68 in June 2018, but that $4.1 billion investment was more narrowly focused on parks, water and coastal resilience projects, almost all of which is spent or allocated. The last state water bond approved by voters was ten years ago, and some of the money is still being allocated. In November 2018, voters wisely rejected it Proposal 3an $8.8 billion pork-filled water bond that would have forced state taxpayers to pay for projects to be financed by private interests.
Lawmakers who negotiated Proposition 4 say they learned from that measure’s defeat and kept pork to a minimum. Yet we expect legislators to handle the public’s money more responsibly. If they come back in a few years with a new climate bond, as we can almost certainly expect, it should be leaner and more targeted, without opportunistic giveaways that undermine Californians’ confidence.
But the few concerns about the bond are overshadowed by the much more pressing threat posed by climate change. California cannot afford to wait. Voting “yes” on Proposition 4 will help California weather the climate crisis, which is worsening by the year.
Now when it’s in the news, it’s covered in the opinion section of the LA Times. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter.
This story originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
