ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 4

YES on 4: TO CLEAN AND PROTECT OUR DRINKING WATER, PREVENT WILDFIRES

Prop. 4 makes urgent, commonsense investments to protect our communities, health, economy, and natural resources by:

• Cleaning up and protecting water supplies
• Preventing devastating wildfires
• Protecting forests, beaches, fresh water sources, and wildlife habitat

Voting Yes on 4 is urgently needed. California faces increasing threats from wildfires, water pollution, and extreme heat. Investments today can prevent future costs and damage from a changing climate and more frequent natural disasters.

PROVIDING CLEAN, SAFE DRINKING WATER

Prop. 4 will clean up and protect California’s drinking water supplies in all regions of California—remove toxic pollutants from our drinking water, addressing infrastructure risks like weakened dams and levees, and increasing supplies.

Today, nearly 1 million Californians lack access to drinking water that meets safety and reliability standards, according to the State Water Board. Yes on 4 helps ensure we all have safe water to drink.

PREVENTING DEVASTATING WILDFIRES AND SMOKE

Recent California wildfires have burned 2 million acres, released toxic smoke into our air, and polluted drinking water supplies. Fire damage and smoke have harmed quality of life and health, including children’s lungs, in every corner of California. Prop. 4 invests in projects to prevent wildfires, reduce their intensity when they do occur, and improve disaster response.

“Giving firefighters the tools to prevent wildfires is the best, most cost effective way to prevent the human and financial costs of these disasters. Prop. 4 makes the right investments to save lives and billions in response and recovery costs.”—Tim Edwards, President, CALFIRE Firefighters

PROTECTING FORESTS, BEACHES, RIVERS, STREAMS, AND WILDLIFE

Our beaches, forests, and mountains make California special, and we have a responsibility to protect them for our children and future generations. Protecting natural areas and wildlife is more urgent today than ever before, as we lose wildlife habitat, farm and ranchland, and even beaches wash away. Prop. 4 protects these natural areas from wildfire, pollution, and other threats from a changing climate.

PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH

By removing pollution from the air and toxins from our water, Prop. 4 protects the health of vulnerable seniors and children.

STRONG FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY & TRANSPARENCY

California is already paying the price for failing to adequately prepare for drought and a changing climate. This measure helps shift from disaster response to prevention.

Our state and communities will save billions more by avoiding and reducing damage from wildfires, droughts, and floods.

Prop. 4 contains strict fiscal accountability and transparency:

• Annual independent audits
• Full public disclosure of all future funding

Join California firefighters (CalFire Local 2881), the National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, Clean Water Action, and water agencies including San Diego Co Water Authority: YES on 4.

Jennifer Clary, State Director

Clean Water Action

Tim Edwards, President

CALFIRE Firefighters

Beth Pratt, California Regional Executive Director

National Wildlife Federation

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 4

Clean drinking water and preventing destructive wildfires are necessities, not luxuries. These should be addressed within our state budget, not by demanding $10 billion more from the taxpayers in the form of a bond that will cost nearly double to repay—$19.3 billion.

The challenges we face with wildfires and water supply are the result of decades of neglect and mismanagement of our resources. Empowering tribal leaders for forest management and investing in water infrastructure could have prevented these crises. These aren’t random occurrences, but repercussions of misguided policies.

Despite politicians’ frequent promises for accountability, since 2000 California voters have approved over $30 billion in natural resources bonds—with little to show. After years of refusing to prioritize spending on forest management, we are suffering the aftermath of major wildfires that could have been prevented, or at least minimized. After years of refusing to invest in water storage, we are facing water supply instability.

Instead of burdening taxpayers with a bond that overpromises, we should tackle these issues in the budget. Real change stems from commitment, not quick fixes. This isn’t just policy, it’s our future. Let’s choose pragmatism over procrastination.

Sacramento politicians should not demand more money from the taxpayers or pressure voters to pass an unrealistic bond package that lacks any lasting change to state policy. Vote NO on Proposition 4.

Vote NO on deferring our environmental responsibility at double the cost. Let’s invest in a greener tomorrow today.

Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones

Assemblyman Jim Patterson

Jon Coupal, President

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 4

TOO MUCH DEBT, TOO LITTLE BENEFIT: THE PROBLEM WITH PROPOSITION 4

Bonds are the most expensive way for the government to pay for things. Proposition 4 would add a whopping $10 billion of debt to the taxpayers—PLUS an estimated $9.3 billion in interest—to pay for climate-related programs. This funding would also cover administrative costs and salaries for grant recipients. But remember, this is borrowed money.

At the start of the year, California already had over $78 billion of bond debt. Proposition 1 in March added another $6.38 billion. Now there’s a proposal to add an additional $10 billion for ambiguous climate programs. Guess who’s going to foot the bill? That’s right—we taxpayers. Our tax dollars will be diverted from essential services to cover interest payments and principal repayment of the bond.

Bonds are borrowed money that must be paid back, PLUS INTEREST, no matter what the state must cut to do it. Governor Newsom already declared a budget emergency because the state spends more than it takes in. How many programs will have to be cut in the future to pay for Proposition 4? According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, we had a $62 billion deficit this year. What will happen when we have both a deficit AND the obligation to repay this enormous bond debt?

Two years ago, California had a nearly $100 billion SURPLUS. If these climate projects had been prioritized then, we could have covered the entire cost of this bond with just 10 percent of that surplus. Now, due to the government’s inability to manage its spending, they are asking voters for more of their hard-earned money.

AS A VOTER, YOUR TAX DOLLARS SHOULD FUND YOUR HIGHEST PRIORITIES, NOT PET PROJECTS.

Bonds should be reserved for financing essential projects that will build infrastructure lasting beyond the 30-year payoff period. However, many elements of Proposition 4 fail to meet that standard, resulting in $10 billion of spending just being added to the taxpayers’ credit card—with a lack of accountability or measured metrics for success! Proposition 4 is full of money being funneled to unproven technologies that may sound promising on paper but have no concrete evidence of success. By committing funds to speculative projects, Proposition 4 overlooks long-term water storage and critical wildfire fuel management programs in favor of short-term, unproven projects.

IT’S RECKLESS TO USE COSTLY BORROWED MONEY TO PAY FOR UNPROVEN PROGRAMS.

Proposition 4 represents a reckless increase in state debt with questionable benefits. The government should prioritize essential services and ensure that any borrowing is reserved for projects that provide lasting, tangible benefits to the state and its residents. Vital programs should be funded in the budget with the taxes we already pay, not through costly borrowing. What’s in the budget that’s a higher priority than safe drinking water and wildfire prevention? Politicians should answer that question before racking up another $10+ billion in debt that will have to be paid back, WITH INTEREST.

Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones

Assemblyman Jim Patterson

Jon Coupal, President

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST
PROPOSITION 4

YES on 4: ADDRESSES CALIFORNIA'S HIGHEST PRIORITY DRINKING WATER and FIRE PREVENTION NEEDS

California firefighters, clean water organizations, public health experts, and conservation groups urge YES on 4, to address our state's most vital needs for a safe water supply, wildfire prevention, and clean air.

The opposition itself admits, clean water and wildfire prevention are critical priorities.

Prop. 4 makes efficient, sensible investments in proven solutions: upgrading drinking water treatment to remove contaminants, fixing crumbling dams and levees to prevent floods, creating groundwater storage and recycling plants to boost supply and prepare for drought, and investing in effective wildfire prevention and containment strategies.

YES on 4: SMART, URGENT INVESTMENTS WITH STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS, PROTECTS COMMUNITIES AND PREVENTS BILLIONS IN FUTURE COSTS

Yes on 4 is fiscally responsible and fully transparent. Nearly 1 million Californians lack access to clean drinking water. Yes on 4's investments strengthen safe water supplies and flood control infrastructure—saving billions in temporary fixes and economic losses.

A UCLA study found 10 years of wildfire smoke have caused 50,000 premature deaths and $400 billion in economic losses. Wildfire prevention saves six times its cost in reduced damage, while protecting our health.

“California's financial health is vulnerable to natural disasters, neglected infrastructure, and a changing climate. Without raising taxes, Yes on Prop. 4 saves California money while helping state and local governments protect our communities.”—Tim Gage, former state Director of Finance. California communities can't wait.

YES on 4: CLEAN DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE PREVENTION, and OUR HEALTH.

Susana De Anda, Executive Director

Community Water Center

Sarah Gibson, Fire Manager

The Nature Conservancy

Christopher Chavez, Deputy Policy Director

Coalition for Clean Air