My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SR0087014_SSNL
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
C
>
CARROLTON
>
18163
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
SR0087014_SSNL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2024 9:12:12 AM
Creation date
8/17/2023 1:11:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
FileName_PostFix
SSNL
RECORD_ID
SR0087014
PE
2602
STREET_NUMBER
18163
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
CARROLTON
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
RIPON
Zip
95366
APN
24538026
ENTERED_DATE
8/1/2023 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
18163 S CARROLTON RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
353
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
California Water Today 119 <br /> Relative to other states,California has an active initiative process,whereby <br /> interest groups can put both policy and spending measures on the ballot49 In <br /> addition,the California legislature must place general obligation(GO)bonds up <br /> for public vote,and it has the option to seek voter approval for policy measures. <br /> Policy and fiscal initiatives are also common at the local level(Gordon 2004). <br /> Although relatively few policy initiatives have addressed water issues at the <br /> state level,50 the electorate has weighed in on fundamental water policy decisions <br /> at several key times in the past:The first modern water code(1914),the Central <br /> Valley Project(1933),the"reasonable use"provisions of the California constitu- <br /> tion (1928), and the State Water Project (1960) all went before voters for their <br /> approval(Chapter 1).Voters were also responsible for two important pieces of <br /> recent policy:the 1982 defeat of the peripheral canal,which had been approved <br /> by the governor and the legislature two years earlier, and the 1986 passage of <br /> Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Enforcement Act,which <br /> aimed to protect drinking water from several types of hazardous chemicals. <br /> In recent decades, voters have been solicited numerous times to approve <br /> GO bonds to support water-related activities. Between 1970 and 2006,voters <br /> approved more than 20 water bonds—covering water supply, water quality, <br /> and flood control—authorizing a total of over$32 billion(2008$)in spending <br /> (Table 2.9). The size of these bonds has increased dramatically over the past <br /> decade,and GO bonds have become a major mechanism for funding state water- <br /> related activity. The largest water bond to date ($11.1 billion), part of the 2009 <br /> legislative package,was initially scheduled to go before voters in November 2010 <br /> and has now been rescheduled for November 2012 over concerns that the eco- <br /> nomic recession and state budget woes would dissuade voters from approving it. <br /> In parallel to their largesse on state general obligation bonds for water, <br /> California voters have directly restricted the financial options of state and local <br /> governments, including local water agencies. Proposition 13, passed in 1978, <br /> limited property assessments and mandated supermajority voter approval for <br /> the passage of local special taxes.California is also one of only eight states with <br /> supermajority requirements on the passage of local GO bonds.51 (State GO <br /> bonds require only a simple majority to pass.) For water-related activities,two <br /> 49. Out of 24 states that have an initiative process,California was second only to Oregon in the cumulative frequency <br /> of initiatives on statewide ballots as of August 31,2010(353 vs.342)(National Conference of State Legislatures 2010). <br /> 50. Only 6 percent have addressed environmental issues more broadly(Center for Governmental Studies 2008). <br /> 51. This restriction dates back to the early 1900s.Other states with supermajority requirements include Missouri and <br /> North Dakota(two-thirds majority to pass local debt)and Idaho,Iowa,Oklahoma,Washington,and West Virginia <br /> (three-fifths majority). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.