Proposition 4
Should California issue $10 billion in bonds to fund various climate- and environment-related projects?
Proposition 4 would help prepare Californians for the impacts of climate change, largely in the form of infrastructure projects. It would allocate $3.8 billion for safe drinking water, drought, flood and water resilience programs; $1.5 billion for wildfire prevention and restoring the health of forests; and $1.2 billion to increase coastal resiliency and mitigate sea level rise. Other funds would address extreme heat, create nature-based solutions, fight air pollution, etc. It also requires that at least 40% of the funds be used for projects that benefit disadvantaged communities.
Yes Argument
Proposition 4 will allow the state to make needed investments to help California prepare for the ongoing effects of climate change that have worsened in recent years. If passed, it will protect water quality, help prevent wildfires, safeguard coastal communities from sea-level rise, preserve wildlife habitat, and help frontline communities access safe drinking water and green spaces. According to a state report, not intervening would cost Californians $113 billion annually by 2050.
No Argument
California must find other ways to fund climate projects without incurring new debt.
FundraisingCampaign finance data comes from the California Secretary of State’s office or the Federal Election Commission.
Source: California Secretary of State
Key Supporters
In Support
- California Environmental Voters
- Latino Outdoors
- Ocean Conservancy
- Offshore Wind California
- Save The Bay
In Opposition
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
To learn more about how we use your information, please read our privacy policy.
Signed up.
More Statewide Propositions
Should California issue $10 billion in bonds to help build or upgrade educational facilities?
Should marriage rights for same-sex couples be enshrined in the state constitution?
Should California reduce the vote threshold needed to pass certain local bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects?
Should California remove limits on the ability of cities to impose rent control policies capping annual rent increases?
Should California restrict how certain health care providers can spend revenue from prescription drug sales?
Should California make permanent an existing tax on health insurance companies and restrict how those funds can be used?
Should California roll back past reforms and make it easier to charge people with felony crimes and send them to jail or prison if they repeatedly shoplift, or possess some drugs, including fentanyl and methamphetamine?