California’s Prop. 4 tries to meet many resource needs. Is it worth $10 billion? | Opinion

On the November ballot, the $10 billion bond contained in Proposition 4 defies labeling. It’s not exactly a climate change bond, a water bond, a parks bond, a sustainable farming bond or a community assistance bond. It’s all of these, but it addresses pressing state priorities in baby steps.

In a perfect world, voters could reject Prop. 4 as a message to the Democratically-controlled Legislature to stop creating spending packages with more ornaments than a Neiman Marcus Christmas tree. But we don’t have time to waste on climate change, which isn’t even mentioned in the bond’s title..

California is nowhere near prepared for longer droughts and bigger floods and higher sea levels. Investments now will save taxpayers big money in the long run. Prop. 4 has barely enough top-priority spending in it to merit an endorsement. And rejecting it solves nothing because, after five years of ornament-making behind this bond, this Legislature simply can’t be expected to do materially better.

For the Central Valley, Prop. 4 provides $400 million for flood protection. It’s a drop in the bucket compared to the state-estimated $20 billion to $30 billion in projects needed to prepare the valley for coming floods. It’s more important than the $475 million in this bond dedicated to offshore wind projects. But this flood investment is a start. And it helps the state leverage the federal government for perhaps $2 billion in funding. Hopefully, our state and federal leaders will guide this money to the highest priority projects.

There is also much-needed relief for the estimated million Californians who struggle with unsafe drinking water. The proposition sets aside $610 million for water upgrades for affected communities. That’s not enough to meet the estimated $10 billion in need. More money could have gone to this core purpose if Prop 4 had not, as one example, sought to revitalize the Los Angeles River to the tune of $80 million. However, the safe water investment is meaningful and much needed.

California’s forests will continually need wildfire risk reduction projects to minimize the impacts of fire storms. Prop. 4 contains $1.5 billion for wildfire and forest resilience projects. This is far more important than the $700 million in the bond for new parks and outdoor access programs when California struggles to maintain the open spaces that we have. But the forests need this wildfire protection money, now.

California coastal communities face daunting infrastructure problems as the sea rises. Prop. 4 has $1.2 billion set aside for coastal resilience programs. But voters will have to approve this investment in Prop. 4 largely on faith. Precious few of the actual projects are itemized, the bulk of the money awaiting future decisions by the Legislature or other bodies.

Many water interests are not supporting Prop. 4, wanting more money for their projects. There is $386 million in the proposition for water recycling projects, for example. This compares to more than $20 billion in need for just three proposals in Southern California alone. But this level of help reflects a reality of water subsidy limits.

If there were truth in advertising, Prop. 4 would have gone before voters with a previous title that reflected the smorgasbord that it is: The Drought, Flood, and Water Resilience, Wildfire and Forest Resilience, Coastal Resilience, Extreme Heat Mitigation, Biodiversity and Nature-Based Climate Solutions, Climate Smart Agriculture, Park Creation and Outdoor Access, and Clean Energy Bond Act of 2024.

But nobody would vote for that. Neither would most voters who took the time to read this bond’s nearly 100 pages. So the unwieldy package got polished into the far tidier Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024.

There is something metaphorical about Prop. 4. Human imperfections have led to the dangerous warming of the planet. So many of our solutions to date are equally flawed. Prop. 4 only makes sense if we learn from its shortcomings and start focusing our resource spending on needs and not wants.

This story was originally published September 23, 2024 at 7:00 AM with the headline "California’s Prop. 4 tries to meet many resource needs. Is it worth $10 billion? | Opinion."