How Prop 4 funding can best serve California communities

Capitol Weekly welcomes Opinions on California public policy or politics. Please read our guidelines for opinion pieces before submitting an Op-Ed. Submissions that do not adhere to our guidelines will not be considered for publication. 

OPINION – California voters made a bold choice in approving Proposition 4, a $10 billion climate bond to help us adapt to rising temperatures, worsening wildfires, and climate-driven floods. It will take years to reap the benefits from this bond. But the devil is in the details – the specifics of how funds are dispersed will make or break its success.

$10 billion is simultaneously a lot of money and nowhere near enough to fully prepare our state for the challenges to come. Spending these funds efficiently is critical for reaching Prop 4’s stated goals.

Managing the climate crisis is proving particularly challenging because most cities historically built “single purpose” infrastructure. For example, to control flooding, engineers channelized the L.A. River. It works: Even in extreme storms, the region experiences little to no flooding. But we also have massive water pollution from untreated runoff, lost critical greenspace and wildlife habitat, and a missed opportunity to recharge our aquifers.

To avoid these types of unintended consequences, projects funded through Prop 4 must take an integrated approach. L.A. County’s experience disbursing funds from its own suite of late 2010’s public funding measures offers important lessons.

L.A. County voters approved four major initiatives—Measures W, H, A, and M—to address stormwater infrastructure, homelessness and housing, parks, and transit. Collectively dubbed “WHAM,” these measures provide more than $1B annually to make the region more resilient. Individually, the measures generally work as intended. Efforts to align them remain stymied.

Imagine a neighborhood, once redlined or intersected by freeways, reconfigured. Affordable housing now links to multi-modal transportation and includes a living lung irrigated by grey water, where orange trees have been planted to both address food insecurity and provide fire breaks. This is just one example of multi-benefit development. Instead of building isolated, single-purpose projects, these developments are simultaneously designed for resilience, livability, and equity.

Several nonprofit groups that worked to pass the WHAM measures formed the Infrastructure Justice LA Coalition to promote this type of integration. We have learned the hard way that aligning funding is extremely challenging since the measures were not drafted for integration.

Prop 4 encourages agencies to fund multiple-benefit projects that provide maximum public benefit. But if those terms are not well defined, they will not successfully guide project outcomes. Here are three specific actions Sacramento policymakers can take to ensure Prop 4 funding reaches its promised benchmarks.

First, the state must align funding cycles and project criteria to enable multi-benefit projects.
Each of L.A. County’s WHAM measures operate with their own funding cycles, criteria for project scoring, and reporting requirements. The result? Proponents of integrated, multi-benefit projects struggle to leverage multiple funding streams.

To escape this trap, State leaders should require coordination, syncing funding timelines and criteria across Prop 4 implementing agencies. This approach is one good way for the State to streamline and align processes to reduce administrative burdens for grantees managing multiple grants.

It’s also critical to define key terms clearly. Legislators must explicitly define what counts as a “multiple-benefit project,” emphasizing measurable environmental and community outcomes. Program guidelines must include clear targets and metrics. Prop 4 also prioritizes projects that “maximize public benefit.” But how will we measure success? Careful stewardship of Prop 4 funding can and should lead to the best outcomes and the most efficient use of public dollars provided clear guidelines are in place.

Agencies using Prop 4 funding must also engage community early enough to inform project development. Project proponents should be required to show how input was incorporated (or why it wasn’t). And sufficient funding for engagement must be built into every project budget.

Agencies can no longer rely on robust federal funding for local infrastructure despite worsening climate change impacts. This $10 billion investment is a chance to protect communities ahead of extreme weather events. Delivering smart, community-focused projects is essential if we hope to ensure a livable future for every Californian – but only if policymakers pay attention to those devilish details.

Audrey Siu is Urban Resilience Director for Los Angeles Waterkeeper.