Editorial: Climate measure highlights failure of bond spending

California voters have in recent years showed some unexpected common sense when voting on ballot measures, as they have repeatedly rejected rent controls and tax increases. Yet these same voters have the habit of approving expensive bonds that never deliver as promised. Perhaps the latest fracas over a 2024 climate, parks and environmental bond will offer a useful lesson for coming elections.

Voters approved Proposition 4 with 60% to 40% percent margins. It approved $10 billion in state bonds to address climate change, including $3.8 billion for safe drinking water and nearly $2 billion each for wildfire prevention and parks. This Editorial Board opposed the measure because any such spending ought to come from the general fund. State bonds don’t increase taxes, but they create pressure for higher taxes by tying up spending.

They’re also absurdly expensive given the interest costs. The Legislative Analyst’s Office noted the state has already provided significant funding for climate-change programs. Bonds should be reserved for crucial long-term infrastructure projects, not as a grab bag of spending projects the Legislature refuses to prioritize in the normal budgeting process.

But a new legislative effort spotlights another problem with bonds: they rarely accomplish much. Assemblyman David Alvarez, D-Chula Vista, has introduced Assembly Bill 35, with the goal of streamlining the state’s myriad regulatory impediments to the projects funded by the proposition, CalMatters reported. That is so typically California: Spend taxpayer dollars to fund new projects, which get delayed because of regulatory hurdles.

We’re not against AB 35. The 2024 initiative was unwise, but voters approved it. We always support efforts to lessen regulatory burdens however modest. But let’s not kid ourselves: spending these funds won’t make a dent in climate change.

Some of the proposition’s proposed projects are perfectly reasonable. We’ve repeatedly noted that some rural areas in the San Joaquin Valley have struggled with unsafe drinking water. Yet the Legislature has had ample opportunity to address these problems by, say, helping local water districts upgrade their facilities or tap into neighboring water systems. The problem lingers year after year, even as the state uses this injustice to lobby for more funding.

As we noted in our “no on Prop. 4” editorial: “Little money goes to traditional water-infrastructure projects. … Much of the energy money goes toward building wind turbines off the coast. The state will offer resiliency loans to local governments. Stop us when you hear projects so compelling they require $19 billion in repayments.” Meanwhile, the Legislature continues to spend $100-billion-plus on a high-speed rail system that won’t make a dent in the climate problem.

There are projects the state could undertake that would help reduce emissions. For instance, the state’s wildfires obliterate our climate goals. Proposition 4 provides $1.5 billion for wildfire resilience, but the plurality of those dollars fund nature conservancies. How about serious spending on brush clearance and other proven strategies? And that money could easily come from a general fund that is now soaked in debt—but had been awash in a $97.5-billion surplus in 2022.

So, by all means, the Legislature should remove regulatory obstacles to Proposition 4 spending projects, but it should spend more time prioritizing projects that will genuinely reduce wildfire risk — and it should do so from its ample budget.