My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SR0084717_SSNL
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
A
>
AUSTIN
>
285
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
SR0084717_SSNL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/17/2022 12:18:44 PM
Creation date
1/13/2022 9:53:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
FileName_PostFix
SSNL
RECORD_ID
SR0084717
PE
2602
FACILITY_NAME
285 S AUSTIN RD
STREET_NUMBER
285
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
AUSTIN
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
MANTECA
Zip
95336
APN
22802048
ENTERED_DATE
1/12/2022 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
285 S AUSTIN RD
P_LOCATION
04
P_DISTRICT
003
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\tsok
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.
/
1028
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 107 <br />some levees and reclassification of some areas as within the 100-year floodplain. <br />In 2006, state voters approved nearly $5 billion in bonds to fund flood system <br />upgrades, and in 2007, the state legislature passed, and the governor signed, a <br />set of flood policy bills to raise the level of flood protection in urban areas and <br />reduce new development in high-risk areas. Although this renewed attention <br />to flood protection is valuable, more fundamental policy shifts are needed to <br />protect California’s residents from harm and to improve the environmental <br />performance of flood infrastructure (Chapters 5, 6). <br />Water System Management and Finance <br />In the United States, most water management is local, and California is no <br />exception. Although state and federal legislatures, agencies, and courts have <br />roles in all aspects of water management, thousands of local entities have the <br />frontline responsibility for serving customers, complying with water quality <br />regulations, and raising revenues to cover the operations, maintenance, and <br />capital investments needed to support these tasks. The governance of water <br />in California also involves many nongovernmental interest-based organiza- <br />tions and many large and small private groups, including business interests and <br />ultimately the general public, which make water-related decisions in homes, <br />in businesses and farms, and at the ballot box. In this section, we review the <br />primary roles of different players in managing water, including their opportuni- <br />ties to improve their management and their principal constraints—financial <br />and otherwise. We begin with local decisionmakers (the most numerous and <br />important group) and proceed to state, federal, and other groups involved in <br />managing California’s water. <br />An “Adhocracy” of Decentralized Decisionmakers <br />Although the federal and state governments played a major role in large-scale <br />water infrastructure development, California’s water system remains highly <br />decentralized, with roots dating back to the Era of Local Organization in the <br />late 19th century (Chapter 1).35 Well over a thousand specialized and general <br />purpose local governments, water companies, and other organizations manage <br />water locally (Table 2.6). Several dozen wholesale utilities sell water to other <br />water agencies, and roughly 400 large retail utilities (those serving at least 3,000 <br />35. This reality contrasts with traditional views of water management in the western United States, which emphasize <br />the role of the state and especially federal governments (e.g., Worster 1985).
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.