BIGHORN-DESERT VIEW WATER AGENCY v. KARI VERJIL Part I
BIGHORN-DESERT VIEW WATER AGENCY v. KARI VERJIL Part I
BIGHORN-DESERT VIEW WATER AGENCY v. KARI VERJIL Part I 07:25:2006
BIGHORN-DESERT VIEW WATER AGENCY v. KARI VERJIL
Filed 7/24/06
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
BIGHORN-DESERT VIEW WATER )
AGENCY, )
)
Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and )
Respondent, )
) S127535
v. )
) Ct.App. 4/2 E033515
KARI VERJIL, as Registrar of Voters, etc., )
) San Bernardino County
Defendant and Cross-defendant; ) Super. Ct. No. SCV 097005
)
E. W. KELLEY, )
)
Real Party in Interest, Cross- )
complainant and Appellant. )
__________ )
In November 1996, California voters adopted Proposition 218, which added articles XIII C and XIII D to the California Constitution. In Richmond v. Shasta Community Services Dist. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 409 (Richmond), we construed article XIII D as it applies to fees that a local public water district charged for making new service connections to its domestic water delivery system. We concluded that those connection charges were not â€
Description
Portion of Proposition 218, Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which provides that "the initiative power shall not be prohibited or otherwise limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment, fee or charge," grants local voters authority to adopt an initiative measure reducing local public water district's charges for delivering domestic water to existing customers but does not permit use of initiative to require voter pre-approval for future increases in those charges or for imposition of any new charge. Where proposed initiative would have combined a permissible decrease in water rates with an impermissible restraint on future increases, impermissible provision was sufficiently significant to support trial court's ruling that proposed measure could not appear on ballot.
