SAN DIEGO — The well-being of nature and people is undeniably linked to Cara Lacey, who works for the Nature Conservancy and specializes in creating wildlife corridors and crossings.

Lacey is waiting to see if Proposition 4 passes on the November ballot.

Proposition 4 is a $10 billion bond that would fund various environmental and climate projects — with $3.8 billion going to water projects like drinking water improvements and protecting the state from flood and drought. The rest of the money would be spread among projects like protecting the state from wildfires and extreme heat, and protecting the ocean and coastal lands.

Lacey said it would also give millions of dollars specifically to fund projects such as creating wildlife corridors and crossings.

“Not only does it help ecological communities become more connected, but it also decreases the conflict between humans and animals — so wildlife/vehicular collisions that could happen on roadways — as well as allows for species to continue to move through and migrate through these lands,” Lacey said.

Sen. Brian Jones does not support Proposition 4, saying it comes with too big of a price tag for taxpayers.

“Bonds are like very expensive credit cards that you use to pay off other debt,” he said.  

According to The Legislative Analyst's Office, repaying the money could cost $400 million a year over 40 years, meaning taxpayers could spend $16 billion.

Jones believes Californians can’t afford additional debt to pay for some of the vague infrastructure programs like improving farmer’s markets and workforce development.

He said that while these programs may be worth pursuing, they should be paid for through the existing budget and shouldn’t be funded with long-term debt, which will ultimately come at the expense of future generations.

“I could probably support some of the projects that are in this bond," Jones said. "It’s a $10 million bond. Just two years ago, we have a $100 billion surplus; we could have already been paying for this stuff, we could have already these projects underway, paid for with cash and not put future legislatures and future taxpayers into debt.”

But Lacey and other environmental groups believe the time for waiting has passed and it’s time to spend the money necessary to fix these urgent issues now.

“This bond could fund so many things that are really helpful for people and for animals,” Lacey said.  

Dozens of environmental groups are backing the measure, while other opponents say that California should pay for such projects without taking on more debt.