Keller

Keller v. Chowchilla Water District

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 389·2000 Daily Journal DAR 5229·80 Cal. App. 4th 1006·96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 246·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3899
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 18, 2000F031112California5,289 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thaxter, J.

We are here asked to decide whether a preexisting “standby charge” imposed by a water district for the purchase of water is exempted from the assessment procedures of Proposition 218. We conclude that it is.

Facts and Procedural Background

Respondents (hereinafter the parcel owners) own or lease land within the boundaries of appellant Chowchilla Water District (hereinafter the District). Many of the parcel owners are pistachio growers. The District’s boundaries include property in Merced and Madera Counties. The District is a specialized district organized under California law. Pursuant to its general powers, the District may purvey water to landowners and residents of the District.

On November 6, 1996, articles XIII C and XIII D of the California Constitution went into effect after being approved by a vote of the people of the State of California. These amendments to the California Constitution appeared as Proposition 218 on the ballot for the November 5, 1996, General Election and are also known as the Right to Vote on Taxes Act. Generally speaking, Proposition 218 enacted procedures to be followed by a local government wishing to adopt or increase taxes,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.